This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
He was lying on the floor and with his hands in the air, and had a toy truck near to him which an autistic person was playing with.
http://secondnexus.com/social/black-man-shot-hands-up/?utm_content=inf_10_1...
“I thought it was a mosquito bite, and when it hit me I had my hands in the air, and I’m thinking I just got shot! And I’m saying, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me were, ‘I don’t know.’”
Post edited at 23:12
2
4
In reply to Timmd:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36859305
Bl**dy hell, thank god our cops don't have guns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36859305
Bl**dy hell, thank god our cops don't have guns.
10
1
In reply to Bobling:
I'd rather thank god that we don't live in a country where everyone you deal with has easy access to an easily concealable lethal weapon.
> Bl**dy hell, thank god our cops don't have guns.
I'd rather thank god that we don't live in a country where everyone you deal with has easy access to an easily concealable lethal weapon.
9
6
In reply to Bobling:
Those of our police that have guns are rather more highly trained in the delicate art of not using them if at all possible.
Those of our police that have guns are rather more highly trained in the delicate art of not using them if at all possible.
19
3
6
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
They just need a few more guns and everything will be OK.
> Absolutely shocking. America looks like a horrible place at the moment
They just need a few more guns and everything will be OK.
14
1
In reply to off-duty:
I'm thinking it can't take a huge amount of thought or team work to check that a man lying on his back with his hands in the air doesn't have a gun, though, with one police person pointing their gun at him while the other checks him for weapons?
> I'd rather thank god that we don't live in a country where everyone you deal with has easy access to an easily concealable lethal weapon.
I'm thinking it can't take a huge amount of thought or team work to check that a man lying on his back with his hands in the air doesn't have a gun, though, with one police person pointing their gun at him while the other checks him for weapons?
Post edited at 18:16
5
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not disagreeing with you. Hence why I wasn't replying to your post.
> I'm thinking it can't take a huge amount of thought or team work to check that a man lying on his back with his hands in the air doesn't have a gun, though, with one police person pointing their gun at him while the other checks him for weapons?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Hence why I wasn't replying to your post.
1
In reply to Timmd:
1) Terrible situation for the carer who was shot, I hope he is on the mend and nothing like this happens again.
2) Why the dislikes to the OP?
1) Terrible situation for the carer who was shot, I hope he is on the mend and nothing like this happens again.
2) Why the dislikes to the OP?
4
4
In reply to off-duty:
I think that is a large part of the issue, armed public requires an armed police force.
Armed policing brings with it its own issues, the recent football violence in France may have been policed more effectively if the police were unarmed. Unarmed police can get more involved with the crowds, engage, encourage and discourage behaviours where armed police must stand off to protect their weapons from theft and misuse.
> I'd rather thank god that we don't live in a country where everyone you deal with has easy access to an easily concealable lethal weapon.
I think that is a large part of the issue, armed public requires an armed police force.
Armed policing brings with it its own issues, the recent football violence in France may have been policed more effectively if the police were unarmed. Unarmed police can get more involved with the crowds, engage, encourage and discourage behaviours where armed police must stand off to protect their weapons from theft and misuse.
4
3
3
In reply to off-duty:
Better move to somewhere without kitchen knives then!
Less flippantly it's easy to see how a US police officer could easily end up in a state of justifiably heightened paranoia about getting shot. Not that this comes close to excusing the apparent actions in this case.
> I'd rather thank god that we don't live in a country where everyone you deal with has easy access to an easily concealable lethal weapon.
Better move to somewhere without kitchen knives then!
Less flippantly it's easy to see how a US police officer could easily end up in a state of justifiably heightened paranoia about getting shot. Not that this comes close to excusing the apparent actions in this case.
1
1
In reply to alx:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7274/cops-shoot-white-guy-fresno-nobody-pays-...
> 2) Why the dislikes to the OP?
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7274/cops-shoot-white-guy-fresno-nobody-pays-...
7
6
1
7
In reply to marsbar:
I think that's part of the problem.
"Unarmed man shot dead by police" is the strapline. Add the word "Black" and immediately THAT is the reason he's been shot - whereas in fact individual situations are often not comparable.
> Have you read that? Hardly comparable.
I think that's part of the problem.
"Unarmed man shot dead by police" is the strapline. Add the word "Black" and immediately THAT is the reason he's been shot - whereas in fact individual situations are often not comparable.
3
In reply to off-duty:
Yup, fair one. My comment was my initial glib response - I didn't mean that I didn't trust the police with guns, just that I'm very grateful that our society does not require every officer to walk round with a firearm at their side.
Yup, fair one. My comment was my initial glib response - I didn't mean that I didn't trust the police with guns, just that I'm very grateful that our society does not require every officer to walk round with a firearm at their side.
3
In reply to off-duty:
I don't know if it was a race issue this time, possibly an understanding of adults with special needs might have helped. Someone elsewhere made a good point, that someone was scared enough of a grown man with a toy truck to call the police.
I don't know if it was a race issue this time, possibly an understanding of adults with special needs might have helped. Someone elsewhere made a good point, that someone was scared enough of a grown man with a toy truck to call the police.
1
1
In reply to marsbar:
The UK police have screwed up royally many times when dealing with individuals with special needs and with people undergoing epileptic fits, and in my understanding in comparison to the US state police ours are both much more highly trained, and are in much less fear of their lives on a daily basis.
Has the reason for the phone call been made? I could imagine it was equally likely that the call was made out of concern for the individual concerned if they were acting apparently erratically in the traffic.
I think most of the police-on-black shootings in the USA are rooted in fear of the officer and not explicit racism (there may be implicit race issues in the fear). However it's very common to see a total closing of ranks of officers and reluctance or outright refusal to prosecute at a state level that suggests serious institutional issues.
What the hell can they do with a heavily armed population however? There's no way you could pay enough to be a beat officer in the USA, no way. More firearms training, insisting the police never approach or apprehend anyone individually, so one person can be slightly further than the approaching officer, and in a different line of sight, so they can provide some degree of safety/cover, tackling implicit racism and institutional coverups, all of these together are not perhaps enough.
One could perhaps imagine augmented reality glasses for the police tat combine x-ray backscatter and inductance/radar measurements to give an indication of who is carrying a metal weapon; such technology would need a large investment (!) and would be no use when stopping a motors which is a common cause of police shootings.
Or perhaps encourage more use of non-lethal weapons so at least there's a chance to screw up and let the person live.
What a mess. One thing's for sure, it won't get better if Donald Trump gets in.
> I don't know if it was a race issue this time, possibly an understanding of adults with special needs might have helped.
The UK police have screwed up royally many times when dealing with individuals with special needs and with people undergoing epileptic fits, and in my understanding in comparison to the US state police ours are both much more highly trained, and are in much less fear of their lives on a daily basis.
> Someone elsewhere made a good point, that someone was scared enough of a grown man with a toy truck to call the police.
Has the reason for the phone call been made? I could imagine it was equally likely that the call was made out of concern for the individual concerned if they were acting apparently erratically in the traffic.
I think most of the police-on-black shootings in the USA are rooted in fear of the officer and not explicit racism (there may be implicit race issues in the fear). However it's very common to see a total closing of ranks of officers and reluctance or outright refusal to prosecute at a state level that suggests serious institutional issues.
What the hell can they do with a heavily armed population however? There's no way you could pay enough to be a beat officer in the USA, no way. More firearms training, insisting the police never approach or apprehend anyone individually, so one person can be slightly further than the approaching officer, and in a different line of sight, so they can provide some degree of safety/cover, tackling implicit racism and institutional coverups, all of these together are not perhaps enough.
One could perhaps imagine augmented reality glasses for the police tat combine x-ray backscatter and inductance/radar measurements to give an indication of who is carrying a metal weapon; such technology would need a large investment (!) and would be no use when stopping a motors which is a common cause of police shootings.
Or perhaps encourage more use of non-lethal weapons so at least there's a chance to screw up and let the person live.
What a mess. One thing's for sure, it won't get better if Donald Trump gets in.
Post edited at 22:37
In reply to wintertree:
Crikey, your post has just made me think of the opening scenes from Robocop (original). Demoralised, under resourced and underpaid police force struggling to deal with their next shift and in fear of their lives.
"You have 20 seconds to comply" youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M&
Crikey, your post has just made me think of the opening scenes from Robocop (original). Demoralised, under resourced and underpaid police force struggling to deal with their next shift and in fear of their lives.
"You have 20 seconds to comply" youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M&
1
In reply to Bobling:
Between "Robocop" and "Escape From LA" you've practically got a map to the future. Although to be honest talking to people who've been to Detroit recently the future may be here already.
Between "Robocop" and "Escape From LA" you've practically got a map to the future. Although to be honest talking to people who've been to Detroit recently the future may be here already.
In reply to wintertree:
Just wait until you watch Idiocracy. It used to be funny because it was absurd...
Just wait until you watch Idiocracy. It used to be funny because it was absurd...
2
In reply to Timmd: I'm sure US police are pretty nervy at the moment but black people have plenty to fear from the police unfortunately. In a police/civilian interaction the civilian is far more likely to get shot, and plenty do, with the addition of cover ups and nefarious behavior by the police afterwards.
A full reading on policing policies in , say, Ferguson, is dismal reading.
A full reading on policing policies in , say, Ferguson, is dismal reading.
4
In reply to off-duty:
I wasn't disagreeing (or similar) either.
> I'm not disagreeing with you. Hence why I wasn't replying to your post.
I wasn't disagreeing (or similar) either.
In reply to wbo:
So stop comitting violent crime on such an industrial scale then. 53% of all homicides in the US for instance.
> black people have plenty to fear from the police unfortunately.
So stop comitting violent crime on such an industrial scale then. 53% of all homicides in the US for instance.
2
4
In reply to Indy:
Most crime is committed by men. Maybe we should them all even when they aren't doing anything wrong.
Most crime is committed by men. Maybe we should them all even when they aren't doing anything wrong.
3
1
In reply to Indy:
http://i.imgur.com/JpuFR2B.gif
> So stop comitting violent crime on such an industrial scale then. 53% of all homicides in the US for instance.
http://i.imgur.com/JpuFR2B.gif
3
In reply to marsbar:
Most crime is committed by men. Maybe we should them all even when they aren't doing anything wrong.
That sort of statistically proves the point though doesn't it?
More violent crime is committed by men, therefore more men get shot by the Police.
More violent crime is committed by black men, therefore more black men get shot by the Police.
Most crime is committed by men. Maybe we should them all even when they aren't doing anything wrong.
That sort of statistically proves the point though doesn't it?
More violent crime is committed by men, therefore more men get shot by the Police.
More violent crime is committed by black men, therefore more black men get shot by the Police.
3
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
That does seem to be the case at least in part. It seems the figures for crime by ethnicity are not particularly robust. Using the prison population instead vs shootings in 2015 does indicate that proportionally less black men were shot than in prison. However I expect there is a case for arguing that a black man is more likely to be locked up than a white one for the same crime if the Swimming rapist case is anything to go by.
It goes without saying that you still can't shoot people for being black.
That does seem to be the case at least in part. It seems the figures for crime by ethnicity are not particularly robust. Using the prison population instead vs shootings in 2015 does indicate that proportionally less black men were shot than in prison. However I expect there is a case for arguing that a black man is more likely to be locked up than a white one for the same crime if the Swimming rapist case is anything to go by.
It goes without saying that you still can't shoot people for being black.
Post edited at 16:56
2
1
In reply to off-duty:
Fair comment if there wasn't such a disproportionate number of black people being killed. There's plenty of video evidence of people being shot when they didn't need to be.
> I think that's part of the problem.
> "Unarmed man shot dead by police" is the strapline. Add the word "Black" and immediately THAT is the reason he's been shot - whereas in fact individual situations are often not comparable.
Fair comment if there wasn't such a disproportionate number of black people being killed. There's plenty of video evidence of people being shot when they didn't need to be.
5
1
In reply to krikoman:
In your unqualified, untrained, and uneducated
Opinion, from watching a shitty Facebook video.
And any such officers that are proven to have used lethal force when not appropriate, are jailed for murder.
officers that are proved to have used lethal force when there is, in their honest opinion, the threat to their life or any others, are deemed innocent and acted within the law, and acted with their inherent right to self defence.
In your unqualified, untrained, and uneducated
Opinion, from watching a shitty Facebook video.
And any such officers that are proven to have used lethal force when not appropriate, are jailed for murder.
officers that are proved to have used lethal force when there is, in their honest opinion, the threat to their life or any others, are deemed innocent and acted within the law, and acted with their inherent right to self defence.
2
5
In reply to krikoman:
There is the video in the OP that looks like an appalling negligent discharge.
There is certainly some sort of issue with race in the US - highlighted by the high crime stats for both victims and offenders within the black community.
The question of proportionality is certainly worth discussing - but is that proportionate against the number of black people on the community (almost certainly not) or against the number of black people involved in serious violent crime (hnmmmm.....? )
It would be nice and easy if the answer was a simple racist white cop vs innocent black male, but not infrequently the cops are black, and some of the most impassioned speakers against elements of the black lives matter movement have been black police officers.
Perhaps what might be worthy of more study would be an examination of why the black community in both the US and the UK are overrepresented in crime stats ? Again I am fairly confident the answer is a good deal more complex than "racism innit" or even "poverty innit".
And whilst we are having that look maybe we could tone down the facile rhetoric that leads to protests in London where black youths stab each other and throw bottles at the (unarmed) cops to chants of "Black lives matter " - I'm fairly confident it was NOT some sort of post- modern irony.
> Fair comment if there wasn't such a disproportionate number of black people being killed. There's plenty of video evidence of people being shot when they didn't need to be.
There is the video in the OP that looks like an appalling negligent discharge.
There is certainly some sort of issue with race in the US - highlighted by the high crime stats for both victims and offenders within the black community.
The question of proportionality is certainly worth discussing - but is that proportionate against the number of black people on the community (almost certainly not) or against the number of black people involved in serious violent crime (hnmmmm.....? )
It would be nice and easy if the answer was a simple racist white cop vs innocent black male, but not infrequently the cops are black, and some of the most impassioned speakers against elements of the black lives matter movement have been black police officers.
Perhaps what might be worthy of more study would be an examination of why the black community in both the US and the UK are overrepresented in crime stats ? Again I am fairly confident the answer is a good deal more complex than "racism innit" or even "poverty innit".
And whilst we are having that look maybe we could tone down the facile rhetoric that leads to protests in London where black youths stab each other and throw bottles at the (unarmed) cops to chants of "Black lives matter " - I'm fairly confident it was NOT some sort of post- modern irony.
Post edited at 18:14
6
1
In reply to marsbar:
It goes without saying that you still can't shoot people for being black.
Obviously, but is there any evidence that people are being shot just for being black?
It goes without saying that you still can't shoot people for being black.
Obviously, but is there any evidence that people are being shot just for being black?
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Well you've obviously made your mind up, well done for such a reasoned argument.
Whether they are jailed for murder or not doesn't stop someone being dead does it?
Oh! and if it wasn't for that shitty video evidence, they'd still be on the streets, maybe killing more people.
> In your unqualified, untrained, and uneducated
> Opinion, from watching a shitty Facebook video.
> And any such officers that are proven to have used lethal force when not appropriate, are jailed for murder.
> officers that are proved to have used lethal force when there is, in their honest opinion, the threat to their life or any others, are deemed innocent and acted within the law, and acted with their inherent right to self defence.
Well you've obviously made your mind up, well done for such a reasoned argument.
Whether they are jailed for murder or not doesn't stop someone being dead does it?
Oh! and if it wasn't for that shitty video evidence, they'd still be on the streets, maybe killing more people.
Post edited at 18:58
3
1
In reply to krikoman:
My mind isn't made up. I will wait for the report. That's what we have a judicial system for. We can't just cut about declaring people guilty when we feel like it. What I can be sure of, is that officers make split second decisions to react to a situation under a lot of stress, it's pretty easy for untrained, unqualified people in their living rooms, in a warm and comfortable environment, in their comfort zone, to sit back and make judgments from an armchair, with absolutely no experience or training in the matter.
It is a very well reasoned argument, lethal actions mean that a lethal response may well be warranted.
Everyone has their right to self defence, including police officers, and you can act in self defence for the benefit of other people.
What can stop people being dead, is people reacting properly to the police. And not committing crime.
A shitty video on Facebook only shows a glimpse, a small snapshot of what has happened, no back story, no other angle, no conclusion, it just feeds the Facebook hype, the gang mentality.
And when investigators, a jury, a judge and other qualified professionals deem that someone has acted without proper and reasonable force to a situation then they are punished and dealt with accordingly. As they should, no one is above the law.
End of the day though, people see what they want to see.
My mind isn't made up. I will wait for the report. That's what we have a judicial system for. We can't just cut about declaring people guilty when we feel like it. What I can be sure of, is that officers make split second decisions to react to a situation under a lot of stress, it's pretty easy for untrained, unqualified people in their living rooms, in a warm and comfortable environment, in their comfort zone, to sit back and make judgments from an armchair, with absolutely no experience or training in the matter.
It is a very well reasoned argument, lethal actions mean that a lethal response may well be warranted.
Everyone has their right to self defence, including police officers, and you can act in self defence for the benefit of other people.
What can stop people being dead, is people reacting properly to the police. And not committing crime.
A shitty video on Facebook only shows a glimpse, a small snapshot of what has happened, no back story, no other angle, no conclusion, it just feeds the Facebook hype, the gang mentality.
And when investigators, a jury, a judge and other qualified professionals deem that someone has acted without proper and reasonable force to a situation then they are punished and dealt with accordingly. As they should, no one is above the law.
End of the day though, people see what they want to see.
2
6
In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm not sure what to make of the statistics to be honest. They are conflicting and seem vague in places. Apparently certain ethnicities are considered white for some statistics and not for others which makes comparisons difficult. It certainly seems that something is very wrong somewhere. The prison population is disproportionately black, and there probably is a poverty link, but as off duty says it's not that simple.
I'm not sure what to make of the statistics to be honest. They are conflicting and seem vague in places. Apparently certain ethnicities are considered white for some statistics and not for others which makes comparisons difficult. It certainly seems that something is very wrong somewhere. The prison population is disproportionately black, and there probably is a poverty link, but as off duty says it's not that simple.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
I saw a man lying on his back with his arms in the air get shot. What did you see?
I saw a man lying on his back with his arms in the air get shot. What did you see?
5
1
In reply to marsbar:
Dunno. Not seen it. dont really care.
I will just let the properly trained and qualified professionals deal with it.
You can all form the opinions that you want, but your opinion doesn't mean a damn thing. You haven't got any say in the matter. You aren't trained, experienced or qualified to make an opinion of worth.
So you sit in your armchair and gob off all you want, if it will make you feel better.
Dunno. Not seen it. dont really care.
I will just let the properly trained and qualified professionals deal with it.
You can all form the opinions that you want, but your opinion doesn't mean a damn thing. You haven't got any say in the matter. You aren't trained, experienced or qualified to make an opinion of worth.
So you sit in your armchair and gob off all you want, if it will make you feel better.
2
12
In reply to Bootrock:
I think off duty is qualified and experienced enough.
Meanwhile you are judging that I can't judge it without having seen it yourself. I can assure you it is clear cut that the man who was shot was not a threat.
In my experience of special needs it was clear to me that the other adult was not displaying threatening body language, however I am aware that this may not have been as obvious to the officer.
I don't understand why you would comment on something you haven't seen.
I think off duty is qualified and experienced enough.
Meanwhile you are judging that I can't judge it without having seen it yourself. I can assure you it is clear cut that the man who was shot was not a threat.
In my experience of special needs it was clear to me that the other adult was not displaying threatening body language, however I am aware that this may not have been as obvious to the officer.
I don't understand why you would comment on something you haven't seen.
Post edited at 23:37
6
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? That's really quite rude and grumpy.
> So you sit in your armchair and gob off all you want, if it will make you feel better.
Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? That's really quite rude and grumpy.
4
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Very gracious of you to let them.
A bit more training, professionalism and qualification and perhaps we wouldn't see the same basic storey playing out time and again in the USA. It's almost 30 years since N.W.A. recorded a certain song about the interaction police and young black males (to paraphrase their lyrics...), and a casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that nothing has got better in those 30 years.
You seem to be rather out of touch with the situation in the USA. More than a few people are reacting "properly" and getting shot. You appear to suggest the person who was shot was somehow at fault for committing crime; perhaps you are very unclear about what happened, or perhaps you are callously trolling.
The US legal system seems to be falling down here. State ADAs are too afraid for their careers to prosecute state police, especially given the wall of blue they run in to. It's not just the police; their customs people have had a series of recent high profile cases that amount to sexual assault, common assault and conducting unauthorised medical procedures on US citizens. No sign of state or federal prosecution, just a law suit helped by the ACLU followed by a no-guilt-admitted payoff.
Something is not right in a big way.
> I will just let the properly trained and qualified professionals deal with it
Very gracious of you to let them.
A bit more training, professionalism and qualification and perhaps we wouldn't see the same basic storey playing out time and again in the USA. It's almost 30 years since N.W.A. recorded a certain song about the interaction police and young black males (to paraphrase their lyrics...), and a casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that nothing has got better in those 30 years.
> What can stop people being dead, is people reacting properly to the police. And not committing crime.
You seem to be rather out of touch with the situation in the USA. More than a few people are reacting "properly" and getting shot. You appear to suggest the person who was shot was somehow at fault for committing crime; perhaps you are very unclear about what happened, or perhaps you are callously trolling.
> That's what we have a judicial system for.
The US legal system seems to be falling down here. State ADAs are too afraid for their careers to prosecute state police, especially given the wall of blue they run in to. It's not just the police; their customs people have had a series of recent high profile cases that amount to sexual assault, common assault and conducting unauthorised medical procedures on US citizens. No sign of state or federal prosecution, just a law suit helped by the ACLU followed by a no-guilt-admitted payoff.
Something is not right in a big way.
Post edited at 23:58
1
In reply to wintertree:
Well I don't have much influence over people, nor can I manipulate a lot of people to jumping to conclusions and further segregating and inciting violence and an "us verses them" mentality. Shame celebrities couldn't be as gracious either.
There's always room for improvement, and there is never enough training. So yep. I agree. However, Officers are humans too. They suffer from stress, fear and mistakes too.
However a gang culture of hating the police, and condoning violence, isn't the problem, the laws and the Officers are?
More than a few people? Yea, Of various skin colour, for various reasons. Yet the rhetoric seems to be the same at the moment.
And despite what the media tells you, you will find those that were originally thought to have been "reacting properly" actually weren't, Upon further investigation. And those that did, the officers were found guilty of murder. Don't believe everything you read on Facebook.
High profile? You mean the media has gone mental about another topic it doesn't understand? And is jumping on another band wagon?
Yep. Various things aren't right. It's not all black and white though.
See what I did there?
In all seriousness, post some links relating to that last paragraph, would like to have a little mooch around and a read of it.
> Very gracious of you to let them.
Well I don't have much influence over people, nor can I manipulate a lot of people to jumping to conclusions and further segregating and inciting violence and an "us verses them" mentality. Shame celebrities couldn't be as gracious either.
> A bit more training, professionalism and qualification and perhaps we wouldn't see the same basic storey playing out time and again in the USA. It's almost 30 years since N.W.A. recorded a certain song about the interaction police and young black males (to paraphrase their lyrics...), and a casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that nothing has got better in those 30 years.
There's always room for improvement, and there is never enough training. So yep. I agree. However, Officers are humans too. They suffer from stress, fear and mistakes too.
However a gang culture of hating the police, and condoning violence, isn't the problem, the laws and the Officers are?
> You seem to be rather out of touch with the situation in the USA. More than a few people are reacting "properly" and getting shot. You appear to suggest the person who was shot was somehow at fault for committing crime; perhaps you are very unclear about what happened, or perhaps you are callously trolling.
More than a few people? Yea, Of various skin colour, for various reasons. Yet the rhetoric seems to be the same at the moment.
And despite what the media tells you, you will find those that were originally thought to have been "reacting properly" actually weren't, Upon further investigation. And those that did, the officers were found guilty of murder. Don't believe everything you read on Facebook.
> The US legal system seems to be falling down here. State ADAs are too afraid for their careers to prosecute state police, especially given the wall of blue they run in to. It's not just the police; their customs people have had a series of recent high profile cases that amount to sexual assault, common assault and conducting unauthorised medical procedures on US citizens. No sign of state or federal prosecution, just a law suit helped by the ACLU followed by a no-guilt-admitted payoff.
High profile? You mean the media has gone mental about another topic it doesn't understand? And is jumping on another band wagon?
> Something is not right in a big way.
Yep. Various things aren't right. It's not all black and white though.
See what I did there?
In all seriousness, post some links relating to that last paragraph, would like to have a little mooch around and a read of it.
3
2
In reply to marsbar:
Just fed up of having the same rhetoric shoved down my throat by people who havent got what clue what they are talking about.
It's the age old argument between people acting on the frontline and getting judged by the armchair lawyers/warriors.
Just fed up of having the same rhetoric shoved down my throat by people who havent got what clue what they are talking about.
It's the age old argument between people acting on the frontline and getting judged by the armchair lawyers/warriors.
2
2
In reply to Bootrock:
I flat out disagree. Your definition of "reacting properly" can not be applied to many cases where the approach and behaviour of the police was not by-the-book. How can a private citizen react properly when they don't (and can't) know the rules? Further, your insistence on "reacting properly" does not account for children behaving as children, or people with physical or mental health difficulties who are unable to respond "properly".
Or more likely cop a plea to manslaughter and walk out of the door with a few years probation. The conviction rate against state police in the USA is close to zero.
Yes. Some of the other links of LEO/CBP abuse I posted may have been white victims. I didn't look at the race in any of them however. Even if the US police were shooting innocent people dead in a racially unbiased way, it wouldn't be okay.
This may come as a surprise to you but some of us don't actually get any of our news or current affairs from Facebook.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/woman-sues-border-agency-after-i...
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/07/us-border-control-illegal-cavi...
http://watchdog.org/149224/cavity-search-case/
I could go on. Both CBP and state police - massive payouts, little disciplinary action and no government prosecution of the guilty parties. (Well, I say guilty; their bosses write $1M+ cheques so that the question of guilt doesn't make it to court.) Although overlooked by the media the CT scans they forcibly subject the victims to result in a quantifiable increased risk of cancer over their remaining lifetimes.
It seems very clear to me - and has for a long time before the recent round of media attention - that there are serious, systemic issues around law enforcement in the USA. It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California.
Edit:
Where did I say gang culture is not the problem?
However, when the person being shot by a police officer isn't a violence confining, police hating gang member but some random person going about their daily business then there is a problem with the that police officer. Who as likely has not had a "broken" body camera at the time....
Where did I say "the laws" were a problem? I did not. I said there is a reluctance by ADAs to prosecute state police.
Edit 2: You said "See what I did there" - I saw what you did on another thread recently - jumping to conclusions about the shooter(s) in another situation and their race and/or religion. That makes me strongly question your attempt to portray your approach to this as being impartial and evidence based, as well as your motives in this thread.
> And despite what the media tells you, you will find those that were originally thought to have been "reacting properly" actually weren't, Upon further investigation.
I flat out disagree. Your definition of "reacting properly" can not be applied to many cases where the approach and behaviour of the police was not by-the-book. How can a private citizen react properly when they don't (and can't) know the rules? Further, your insistence on "reacting properly" does not account for children behaving as children, or people with physical or mental health difficulties who are unable to respond "properly".
> And those that did, the officers were found guilty of murder.
Or more likely cop a plea to manslaughter and walk out of the door with a few years probation. The conviction rate against state police in the USA is close to zero.
> More than a few people? Yea, Of various skin colour, for various reasons.
Yes. Some of the other links of LEO/CBP abuse I posted may have been white victims. I didn't look at the race in any of them however. Even if the US police were shooting innocent people dead in a racially unbiased way, it wouldn't be okay.
> Don't believe everything you read on Facebook.
This may come as a surprise to you but some of us don't actually get any of our news or current affairs from Facebook.
> In all seriousness, post some links relating to that last paragraph, would like to have a little mooch around and a read of it.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/woman-sues-border-agency-after-i...
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/07/us-border-control-illegal-cavi...
http://watchdog.org/149224/cavity-search-case/
I could go on. Both CBP and state police - massive payouts, little disciplinary action and no government prosecution of the guilty parties. (Well, I say guilty; their bosses write $1M+ cheques so that the question of guilt doesn't make it to court.) Although overlooked by the media the CT scans they forcibly subject the victims to result in a quantifiable increased risk of cancer over their remaining lifetimes.
It seems very clear to me - and has for a long time before the recent round of media attention - that there are serious, systemic issues around law enforcement in the USA. It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California.
Edit:
> However a gang culture of hating the police, and condoning violence, isn't the problem, the laws and the Officers are?
Where did I say gang culture is not the problem?
However, when the person being shot by a police officer isn't a violence confining, police hating gang member but some random person going about their daily business then there is a problem with the that police officer. Who as likely has not had a "broken" body camera at the time....
Where did I say "the laws" were a problem? I did not. I said there is a reluctance by ADAs to prosecute state police.
Edit 2: You said "See what I did there" - I saw what you did on another thread recently - jumping to conclusions about the shooter(s) in another situation and their race and/or religion. That makes me strongly question your attempt to portray your approach to this as being impartial and evidence based, as well as your motives in this thread.
Post edited at 01:15
3
1
In reply to wintertree:
youtube.com/watch?v=ACKmYhlTx5k&
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Reacting properly means complying, and not acting in a threatening manner.
Kids playing? It's incredibly hard to distinguish a replica firearm from a real one. If there's any doubt then there is no doubt, if there is a threat to life then a lethal response may well be warranted.
Who's to blame? The parents? The toy manufacturers?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/29/28-people-killed-bb-pellet-...
Mental disabilities or not, everyone is accountable for their actions.
If you are a threat to life, then a lethal response is warranted.
Murder and manslaughter are different things. Both could be applicable to Officers who have acted with excessive force, depending on the situation.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-w...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30339943
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-...
Really? Doesn't look like it.
If we are going to tackle these issues, we need to look at all aspects, is it systemic issues? Is it culture issues? Is it a mixture of the two? Or is it just a case of you haven't got a clue because you have no experience in the matter?
I stand by what I said. Unless you have stood and had a split second to react to a situation which could end a life or save a life, you haven't got an opinion of worth.
> I flat out disagree. Your definition of "reacting properly" can not be applied to many cases where the approach and behaviour of the police was not by-the-book. How can a private citizen react properly when they don't (and can't) know the rules? Further, your insistence on "reacting properly" does not account for children behaving as children, or people with physical or mental health difficulties who are unable to respond "properly".
youtube.com/watch?v=ACKmYhlTx5k&
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Reacting properly means complying, and not acting in a threatening manner.
Kids playing? It's incredibly hard to distinguish a replica firearm from a real one. If there's any doubt then there is no doubt, if there is a threat to life then a lethal response may well be warranted.
Who's to blame? The parents? The toy manufacturers?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/29/28-people-killed-bb-pellet-...
Mental disabilities or not, everyone is accountable for their actions.
If you are a threat to life, then a lethal response is warranted.
> Or more likely cop a plea to manslaughter and walk out of the door with a few years probation. The conviction rate against state police in the USA is close to zero.
Murder and manslaughter are different things. Both could be applicable to Officers who have acted with excessive force, depending on the situation.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-w...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30339943
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-...
> This may come as a surprise to you but some of us don't actually get any of our news or current affairs from Facebook.
Really? Doesn't look like it.
> I could go on. Both CBP and state police - massive payouts, little disciplinary action and no government prosecution of the guilty parties. (Well, I say guilty; their bosses write $1M+ cheques so that the question of guilt doesn't make it to court.) Although overlooked by the media the CT scans they forcibly subject the victims to result in a quantifiable increased risk of cancer over their remaining lifetimes.
Can't comment on the Customs stuff, will need to have a read up on it, will be happy to debate it another time. > It seems very clear to me - and has for a long time before the recent round of media attention - that there are serious, systemic issues around law enforcement in the USA. It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California.
If we are going to tackle these issues, we need to look at all aspects, is it systemic issues? Is it culture issues? Is it a mixture of the two? Or is it just a case of you haven't got a clue because you have no experience in the matter?
I stand by what I said. Unless you have stood and had a split second to react to a situation which could end a life or save a life, you haven't got an opinion of worth.
1
3
In reply to wintertree:
I never jumped to any conclusions, I made a sarky comment. And we still don't have a conclusion to it.
The odds were good though. Who else has been killing innocent people in the name of a fairytale, certainly wasn't the Dalai Lama giving it beans with an AK.
I never jumped to any conclusions, I made a sarky comment. And we still don't have a conclusion to it.
The odds were good though. Who else has been killing innocent people in the name of a fairytale, certainly wasn't the Dalai Lama giving it beans with an AK.
Post edited at 01:21
1
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Just so you know... You are - as far as the law in the UK is concerned - demonstrably wrong here. Court judgements in relation to the UK police and several laws (DDA 1995, EA 2010 and ECHR) have made it explicitly clear that the responsibility falls upon the police to accommodate mental health issues.
[SARCASM] - you can tell by all the Facebook links I've posted.
I urge you to step back from your view point. Are you going to tell me that none of the people who have been shot dead by police in the USA, or their relatives had/have an opinion of worth? Perhaps you would like to tell them that yourself.
Let me summarise my interpretation of your viewpoint.
1) People have to react precisely and exactly as expected, without having received any training in doing so, otherwise it's okay for the police to shoot them
2) It's a disabled person's fault that they can't react as expected when dealing with the police, and so that makes it okay if they get shot.
3) Only the police with guns are allowed to have an opinion on police with guns shooting people in situations 1 and 2 above.
Until your last message I was wondering if you were a Met police officer. Now I think you're this guy - youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM&
Edit - dislikers - welcome whoever you are. I assume you to think it's okay for police to shoot disabled people who are unable to comprehend and/or comply with their instructions. Hopefully you are lucky enough to live in the UK where you our your loved ones will be protected from such a f---ked up state of affairs if a disability ever occurs because people who haven't pulled a gun on someone are allowed to have an opinion.
If you read my message from 22:37 Fri you will hopefully see that I think it's a mixture of many different complex issues. Clearly there wouldn't be a large number of armed police officers working in justifiable fear of their lives if there weren't cultural/social issues of violence and specifically violence against the police.
None of which excuses the closed ranks against honest, transparent investigation and potentially prosecution.
Perhaps you can share your experience with the group as you seem to believe that experience is the only think that qualifies anyone to have an opinion, and you sure do have one.
> Mental disabilities or not, everyone is accountable for their actions.
Just so you know... You are - as far as the law in the UK is concerned - demonstrably wrong here. Court judgements in relation to the UK police and several laws (DDA 1995, EA 2010 and ECHR) have made it explicitly clear that the responsibility falls upon the police to accommodate mental health issues.
> Really? Doesn't look like it.
[SARCASM] - you can tell by all the Facebook links I've posted.
> I stand by what I said. Unless you have stood and had a split second to react to a situation which could end a life or save a life, you haven't got an opinion of worth.
I urge you to step back from your view point. Are you going to tell me that none of the people who have been shot dead by police in the USA, or their relatives had/have an opinion of worth? Perhaps you would like to tell them that yourself.
Let me summarise my interpretation of your viewpoint.
1) People have to react precisely and exactly as expected, without having received any training in doing so, otherwise it's okay for the police to shoot them
2) It's a disabled person's fault that they can't react as expected when dealing with the police, and so that makes it okay if they get shot.
3) Only the police with guns are allowed to have an opinion on police with guns shooting people in situations 1 and 2 above.
Until your last message I was wondering if you were a Met police officer. Now I think you're this guy - youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM&
Edit - dislikers - welcome whoever you are. I assume you to think it's okay for police to shoot disabled people who are unable to comprehend and/or comply with their instructions. Hopefully you are lucky enough to live in the UK where you our your loved ones will be protected from such a f---ked up state of affairs if a disability ever occurs because people who haven't pulled a gun on someone are allowed to have an opinion.
> If we are going to tackle these issues, we need to look at all aspects, is it systemic issues? Is it culture issues? Is it a mixture of the two?
If you read my message from 22:37 Fri you will hopefully see that I think it's a mixture of many different complex issues. Clearly there wouldn't be a large number of armed police officers working in justifiable fear of their lives if there weren't cultural/social issues of violence and specifically violence against the police.
None of which excuses the closed ranks against honest, transparent investigation and potentially prosecution.
> Or is it just a case of you haven't got a clue because you have no experience in the matter?
Perhaps you can share your experience with the group as you seem to believe that experience is the only think that qualifies anyone to have an opinion, and you sure do have one.
Post edited at 01:44
5
1
In reply to wintertree:
A threat to life, is still a threat to life. Regardless. Situation may still warrant a lethal response.
They don't. There is a procedure that happens. If the officer is cleared of any wrong doing by a court of law then that's it.
If the officer is deemed to have used excessive force then it's a Murder or Manslaughter charge.
No, that's not what I am saying at all, I am saying you need to comply with the officers, or if you are going to resist, do so in a none threatening manner, or in a way that won' considered a threat to life.
Lethal force may be used if in the Officer's honest opinion there is a threat to their life, or the lives of others.
Lethal force cannot be used in the protection of property (however there are a few exceptions)
if excessive force is deemed to have been used then the officer in question will face charges.
Nope, again. See my first. There's no textbook answer. It may well be the carers partial fault for someone of such a state to get into said situation.
Nope. Only people who have some kind of training, experience, qualification or knowledge (that doesn't include watching TV programmes or reading Facebook).
Awesome film. And no I am not a met officer.
> Just so you know... You are - as far as the law in the UK is concerned - demonstrably wrong here. Court judgements in relation to the UK police and several laws (DDA 1995, EA 2010 and ECHR) have made it explicitly clear that the responsibility falls upon the police to accommodate mental health issues.
A threat to life, is still a threat to life. Regardless. Situation may still warrant a lethal response.
> [SARCASM] - you can tell by all the Facebook links I've posted.
> I urge you to step back from your view point. Are you going to tell me that none of the people who have been shot dead by police in the USA, or their relatives had/have an opinion of worth? Perhaps you would like to tell them that yourself.
They don't. There is a procedure that happens. If the officer is cleared of any wrong doing by a court of law then that's it.
If the officer is deemed to have used excessive force then it's a Murder or Manslaughter charge.
> Let me summarise my interpretation of your viewpoint.
> 1) People have to react precisely and exactly as expected, without having received any training in doing so, otherwise it's okay for the police to shoot them
No, that's not what I am saying at all, I am saying you need to comply with the officers, or if you are going to resist, do so in a none threatening manner, or in a way that won' considered a threat to life.
Lethal force may be used if in the Officer's honest opinion there is a threat to their life, or the lives of others.
Lethal force cannot be used in the protection of property (however there are a few exceptions)
if excessive force is deemed to have been used then the officer in question will face charges.
> 2) It's a disabled person's fault that they can't react as expected when dealing with the police, and so that makes it okay if they get shot.
Nope, again. See my first. There's no textbook answer. It may well be the carers partial fault for someone of such a state to get into said situation.
> 3) Only the police with guns are allowed to have an opinion on police with guns shooting people in situations 1 and 2 above.
Nope. Only people who have some kind of training, experience, qualification or knowledge (that doesn't include watching TV programmes or reading Facebook).
> Until your last message I was wondering if you were a Met police officer. Now I think you're this guy - youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM&
Awesome film. And no I am not a met officer.
1
2
In reply to wintertree:
You scamp, you edited it while I was replying.
Why does everyone hate the dislikers? It might not be the subject but the context they don't like. Don't take it personally.
Luckily We are in the UK, we have various ways of escalating, (and de-escalating) a situation that doesn't always involve lethal force.
Very good point. And I do agree.
My experience doesn't matter. I am not making any judgments, just saying that we have a judicial system in place and trained and qualified people to handle this, we don't need more Facebook/keyboard warriors jumping on the bandwagon.
For interests sake, from the video, it does look like the officer may have used excessive force. However this is just one snapshot. There's so much more to be considered and more evidence we might not have seen.
If it is deemed to be excessive, then the officer will face a charge.
But it's easy for us to sit and watch, re watch, slow down and take as long as we want to analyse a video, in the comfort of our own home with no stress.
You scamp, you edited it while I was replying.
> Edit - dislikers - welcome whoever you are. I assume you to think it's okay for police to shoot disabled people who are unable to comprehend and/or comply with their instructions. Hopefully you are lucky enough to live in the UK where you our your loved ones will be protected from such a f---ked up state of affairs if a disability ever occurs because people who haven't pulled a gun on someone are allowed to have an opinion.
Why does everyone hate the dislikers? It might not be the subject but the context they don't like. Don't take it personally.
Luckily We are in the UK, we have various ways of escalating, (and de-escalating) a situation that doesn't always involve lethal force.
> If you read my message from 22:37 Fri you will hopefully see that I think it's a mixture of many different complex issues. Clearly there wouldn't be a large number of armed police officers working in justifiable fear of their lives if there weren't cultural/social issues of violence and specifically violence against the police.
Very good point. And I do agree.
> None of which excuses the closed ranks against honest, transparent investigation and potentially prosecution.
Well it can't be that closed ranks, officers have faced charges for their actions. > Perhaps you can share your experience with the group as you seem to believe that experience is the only think that qualifies anyone to have an opinion, and you sure do have one.
My experience doesn't matter. I am not making any judgments, just saying that we have a judicial system in place and trained and qualified people to handle this, we don't need more Facebook/keyboard warriors jumping on the bandwagon.
For interests sake, from the video, it does look like the officer may have used excessive force. However this is just one snapshot. There's so much more to be considered and more evidence we might not have seen.
If it is deemed to be excessive, then the officer will face a charge.
But it's easy for us to sit and watch, re watch, slow down and take as long as we want to analyse a video, in the comfort of our own home with no stress.
Post edited at 02:07
1
In reply to Bootrock:
This is where I disagree; I don't think the systems in place in the US are working very well. The worsening situation in terms of numbers in recent years suggests they are not working.
Perhaps in this specific case the system will work as intended - but if it were not for all the recent media sh1t storms and the mobile phone evidence, I honestly do not think anything substantial would have happened.
Normally I would agree with this.
The problem is, the people getting shot are often not the ones causing the problems that lead to a militarised and fearful police force, but are often of the same poor and underrepresented communities. They've been living blighted by this problem for over a generation and nothing seems to be changing for the better. Raising a media rabble is about all that's left. Arguably high profile media cases have played a significant part in seeing some cases go as far as the prosecutors office.
A lot of these shootings happen after a vehicle stop on a minor infringement (light out, "rolling stop" at a cursed 4-way etc). The driver isn't generally "resisting" as they're not generally under arrest. The following seems common: Single armed officer stops car, single armed officer approached window in fear of life, single armed officer asks for licence and identification, driver reaches for papers in glove box, single armed officer makes judgment (or panics) and shoots. It seems to be at the point when you can comply all you want but some officers are so twitchy (and it's easy to see why) that it's not about compliance. It's a lottery. Perhaps rather than asking for the papers the officer ag
I don't think one needs experience of being in the officer's situation to judge that as a wrong situation.
> ... just saying that we have a judicial system in place and trained and qualified people to handle this,
This is where I disagree; I don't think the systems in place in the US are working very well. The worsening situation in terms of numbers in recent years suggests they are not working.
Perhaps in this specific case the system will work as intended - but if it were not for all the recent media sh1t storms and the mobile phone evidence, I honestly do not think anything substantial would have happened.
> we don't need more Facebook/keyboard warriors jumping on the bandwagon.
Normally I would agree with this.
The problem is, the people getting shot are often not the ones causing the problems that lead to a militarised and fearful police force, but are often of the same poor and underrepresented communities. They've been living blighted by this problem for over a generation and nothing seems to be changing for the better. Raising a media rabble is about all that's left. Arguably high profile media cases have played a significant part in seeing some cases go as far as the prosecutors office.
> No, that's not what I am saying at all, I am saying you need to comply with the officers, or if you are going to resist, do so in a none threatening manner, or in a way that won' considered a threat to life.
A lot of these shootings happen after a vehicle stop on a minor infringement (light out, "rolling stop" at a cursed 4-way etc). The driver isn't generally "resisting" as they're not generally under arrest. The following seems common: Single armed officer stops car, single armed officer approached window in fear of life, single armed officer asks for licence and identification, driver reaches for papers in glove box, single armed officer makes judgment (or panics) and shoots. It seems to be at the point when you can comply all you want but some officers are so twitchy (and it's easy to see why) that it's not about compliance. It's a lottery. Perhaps rather than asking for the papers the officer ag
I don't think one needs experience of being in the officer's situation to judge that as a wrong situation.
Post edited at 02:49
1
In reply to wintertree:
Worsening terms of numbers? You mean a 44% increase in police deaths? Of course it's not a cultural flaw, it's a systemic flaw. Despite the fact that black and Hispanic officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white officer?
Is whipping up a media storm and creating more division and segregation the answer? No.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-ki...
The media condemn a man before it even goes to trial.
"problem is, the people getting shot are often not the ones causing the problem"
That's pure speculation. Over 70% of police shootings are justified where a firearm has been involved.
Only 5% of shootings are proved to have been unjustified.
Again! Pure speculation and unfounded. And it's comments like that, that make me think you get your news from Facebook and YouTube.
http://www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/these-statistics-for-police-viole...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356369/Police-sergeant-witnessed-k...
You need sound knowledge, experience and qualifications to make an opinion of worth. Otherwise you haven't got a clue and are just following the rhetoric.
> This is where I disagree; I don't think the systems in place in the US are working very well. The worsening situation in terms of numbers in recent years suggests they are not working.
Worsening terms of numbers? You mean a 44% increase in police deaths? Of course it's not a cultural flaw, it's a systemic flaw. Despite the fact that black and Hispanic officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white officer?
Is whipping up a media storm and creating more division and segregation the answer? No.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-ki...
> Perhaps in this specific case the system will work as intended - but if it were not for all the recent media sh1t storms and the mobile phone evidence, I honestly do not think anything substantial would have happened.
All the media does, is whip up a frenzy, a knee jerk reaction and segregates and divides people even more. The media condemn a man before it even goes to trial.
> The problem is, the people getting shot are often not the ones causing the problems that lead to a militarised and fearful police force, but are often of the same poor and underrepresented communities. They've been living blighted by this problem for over a generation and nothing seems to be changing for the better. Raising a media rabble is about all that's left. Arguably high profile media cases have played a significant part in seeing some cases go as far as the prosecutors office.
"problem is, the people getting shot are often not the ones causing the problem"
That's pure speculation. Over 70% of police shootings are justified where a firearm has been involved.
Only 5% of shootings are proved to have been unjustified.
> A lot of these shootings happen after a vehicle stop on a minor infringement (light out, "rolling stop" at a cursed 4-way etc). The driver isn't generally "resisting" as they're not generally under arrest. The following seems common: Single armed officer stops car, single armed officer approached window in fear of life, single armed officer asks for licence and identification, driver reaches for papers in glove box, single armed officer makes judgment (or panics) and shoots. It seems to be at the point when you can comply all you want but some officers are so twitchy (and it's easy to see why) that it's not about compliance. It's a lottery. Perhaps rather than asking for the papers the officer
Again! Pure speculation and unfounded. And it's comments like that, that make me think you get your news from Facebook and YouTube.
http://www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/these-statistics-for-police-viole...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356369/Police-sergeant-witnessed-k...
> I don't think one needs experience of being in the officer's situation to judge that as a wrong situation.
You need sound knowledge, experience and qualifications to make an opinion of worth. Otherwise you haven't got a clue and are just following the rhetoric.
Post edited at 09:00
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
A moment ago you didn't care and weren't qualified to comment. Now you've done a significant data analysis not reliant on media sources of all the officer involved shootings in the US and found that the system is perfect. I would like to name you as criminologist of year!
> And despite what the media tells you, you will find those that were originally thought to have been "reacting properly" actually weren't, Upon further investigation. And those that did, the officers were found guilty of murder.
A moment ago you didn't care and weren't qualified to comment. Now you've done a significant data analysis not reliant on media sources of all the officer involved shootings in the US and found that the system is perfect. I would like to name you as criminologist of year!
6
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Are you an American policeman then? You better tell us why your opinion is so valid if you are going to deny the right of others to have one.
> I stand by what I said. Unless you have stood and had a split second to react to a situation which could end a life or save a life, you haven't got an opinion of worth.
Are you an American policeman then? You better tell us why your opinion is so valid if you are going to deny the right of others to have one.
6
1
In reply to TobyA:
I was talking about the specific Micheal brown case, where it was circulated that he "had his hands up" however it was proved later, after all the carnage and rioting, that witness accounts didn't say he had his hands up.
The system isn't perfect, I just shared a link where 2 black officers shot 13 rounds into a car with a white autistic child in, and the Sgt who witnessed it hadn't drawn his weapon because he didn't feel there was a "threat to life" and as such the 2 officers were jailed for Murder. Yet where was the media outrage and rioting?
White people are shot more by Police than Black people are, yet blacks may have a disproportionate amount of deaths due to making up a smaller number of population, but their crime rate is disproportionate to their numbers too. With black on black crime being the main cause of homocide in those communities.
I just like to make my own mind up rather than blindly follow a rhetoric that gets people killed, segregates people and doesn't look at the big picture. Instead of knee jerk reactions and taking each situation on a case by case basis.
> A moment ago you didn't care and weren't qualified to comment. Now you've done a significant data analysis not reliant on media sources of all the officer involved shootings in the US and found that the system is perfect. I would like to name you as criminologist of year!
I was talking about the specific Micheal brown case, where it was circulated that he "had his hands up" however it was proved later, after all the carnage and rioting, that witness accounts didn't say he had his hands up.
The system isn't perfect, I just shared a link where 2 black officers shot 13 rounds into a car with a white autistic child in, and the Sgt who witnessed it hadn't drawn his weapon because he didn't feel there was a "threat to life" and as such the 2 officers were jailed for Murder. Yet where was the media outrage and rioting?
White people are shot more by Police than Black people are, yet blacks may have a disproportionate amount of deaths due to making up a smaller number of population, but their crime rate is disproportionate to their numbers too. With black on black crime being the main cause of homocide in those communities.
I just like to make my own mind up rather than blindly follow a rhetoric that gets people killed, segregates people and doesn't look at the big picture. Instead of knee jerk reactions and taking each situation on a case by case basis.
4
3
In reply to TobyA:
I never said my opinion was. Just simply reminding people that it's easy to sit and analyse a video in an armchair. I am just countering the arguments.
And that we have trained and qualified people in a judicial system to make these decisions. We don't need more segregation and more hatred being pushed.
> Are you an American policeman then? You better tell us why your opinion is so valid if you are going to deny the right of others to have one.
I never said my opinion was. Just simply reminding people that it's easy to sit and analyse a video in an armchair. I am just countering the arguments.
And that we have trained and qualified people in a judicial system to make these decisions. We don't need more segregation and more hatred being pushed.
2
2
In reply to wintertree:
The German and French border police did the same to me in early nineties just because I was east European backpacker hitch-hiking across the country. And there was nowhere to complain those days because they just ignored me. I know several more people with the same experience from that time.
Not a typical American problem
The German and French border police did the same to me in early nineties just because I was east European backpacker hitch-hiking across the country. And there was nowhere to complain those days because they just ignored me. I know several more people with the same experience from that time.
Not a typical American problem
1
In reply to Bootrock:
And we all know this because of media sources such as the Washington Post and the Guardian US spending significant resources to try and collate all officer-involved shootings in the US, while the FBI or other federal authorities refuse to do so.
You just posted a link to Allen West's blog?! Really!?
> White people are shot more by Police than Black people are,
And we all know this because of media sources such as the Washington Post and the Guardian US spending significant resources to try and collate all officer-involved shootings in the US, while the FBI or other federal authorities refuse to do so.
> I just like to make my own mind up rather than blindly follow a rhetoric that gets people killed, segregates people and doesn't look at the big picture.
You just posted a link to Allen West's blog?! Really!?
3
1
In reply to Bootrock:
So, you won't comment on the current case we were actually talking about, leave it to the professionals. But when it suits you you will cherry pick another historical case.
So, you won't comment on the current case we were actually talking about, leave it to the professionals. But when it suits you you will cherry pick another historical case.
> I was talking about the specific Micheal brown case, where it was circulated that he "had his hands up" however it was proved later, after all the carnage and rioting, that witness accounts didn't say he had his hands up
> I just like to make my own mind up rather than blindly follow a rhetoric
So do I. That's why I watched the video we are are talking about that you stubbornly refused to watch then looked at the statistics.
4
1
In reply to wintertree:
For someone who professes to be analysing the data that is a flat-out bizarre conclusion to come to.
You have seriously considered the risk posed to you as an innocent person by US law enforcement to be a reason for not moving to California ??
I think your risk assessment procedures are slightly (very) skewed.
Partially agree - but very often the reason for the initial police involvement is a call from a member of the public regarding their concerns over that innocent member of the public, so the cop is starting from a heightened level of suspicion/fear/tension
I think it is actually a problem getting grand juries to agree there is a case.
> It seems very clear to me - and has for a long time before the recent round of media attention - that there are serious, systemic issues around law enforcement in the USA. It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California.
For someone who professes to be analysing the data that is a flat-out bizarre conclusion to come to.
You have seriously considered the risk posed to you as an innocent person by US law enforcement to be a reason for not moving to California ??
I think your risk assessment procedures are slightly (very) skewed.
> Edit:
> Where did I say gang culture is not the problem?
> However, when the person being shot by a police officer isn't a violence confining, police hating gang member but some random person going about their daily business then there is a problem with the that police officer. Who as likely has not had a "broken" body camera at the time....
Partially agree - but very often the reason for the initial police involvement is a call from a member of the public regarding their concerns over that innocent member of the public, so the cop is starting from a heightened level of suspicion/fear/tension
> Where did I say "the laws" were a problem? I did not. I said there is a reluctance by ADAs to prosecute state police.
I think it is actually a problem getting grand juries to agree there is a case.
3
In reply to off-duty:
I don't think they are skewed. Statistically I'm at low risk - especially as I'm white and anecdotally a "British" accent helps a lot with police stops. That being said I've been a passenger in a car that's been pulled over for a minor violation in the states. Luckily it all ended well. The police issue wasn't the only thing that put me off and wouldn't by itself (I don't think I claimed otherwise) but it did get me reading a lot into the issue.
Seeing risk as probability times consequences, the consequences can be unrecoverably severe.
I can see how that raises apprehension further. If you have racism or unconscious bias in the population it could also contribute to the racial bias in police shootings.
Regardless of the cause the operating procedures seem set to cause escalation.
Fair enough.
> You have seriously considered the risk posed to you as an innocent person by US law enforcement to be a reason for not moving to California ??
> I think your risk assessment procedures are slightly (very) skewed.
I don't think they are skewed. Statistically I'm at low risk - especially as I'm white and anecdotally a "British" accent helps a lot with police stops. That being said I've been a passenger in a car that's been pulled over for a minor violation in the states. Luckily it all ended well. The police issue wasn't the only thing that put me off and wouldn't by itself (I don't think I claimed otherwise) but it did get me reading a lot into the issue.
Seeing risk as probability times consequences, the consequences can be unrecoverably severe.
> Partially agree - but very often the reason for the initial police involvement is a call from a member of the public regarding their concerns over that innocent member of the public, so the cop is starting from a heightened level of suspicion/fear/tension
I can see how that raises apprehension further. If you have racism or unconscious bias in the population it could also contribute to the racial bias in police shootings.
Regardless of the cause the operating procedures seem set to cause escalation.
> I think it is actually a problem getting grand juries to agree there is a case.
Fair enough.
Post edited at 10:32
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Only if you beleive the US judicial system is functioning efficiently here. Which is easy to do if you take the outputs of that system as evidence that it is functioning properly and disregard all other sources of information as rhetoric.
Between that and your insistence that the opinions of the public (whom this system exits only to serve and protect) are worthless I am left rather saddened. I'll await my customary two dislikes.
> Only 5% of shootings are proved to have been unjustified.
Only if you beleive the US judicial system is functioning efficiently here. Which is easy to do if you take the outputs of that system as evidence that it is functioning properly and disregard all other sources of information as rhetoric.
Between that and your insistence that the opinions of the public (whom this system exits only to serve and protect) are worthless I am left rather saddened. I'll await my customary two dislikes.
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
Sorry, but I'm afraid they are skewed. You don't seem to consider the number of traffic stops, let alone other police/ public interactions that pass in an utterly mundane manner.
There are very occasional extremely high profile police shootings where the victim either is, or is proclaimed to be, innocent.
The risk of being involved in an incident like that is approaching zero.
If it is the potential consequences that are the worry, rather than the likelihood of those consequences then driving, cycling and probably crossing the road will now be off-limits, let alone moving to a foreign country.
I agree - on the fragmentary video of many of these incidents it appears that the cops could have approached things better. Always worth qualifying that with the fact that the video often does not capture everything.
Worth bearing in mind that the vast number of stops carried out each year do pass without any harm coming to anyone.
> I don't think they are skewed. Statistically I'm at low risk - especially as I'm white and anecdotally a "British" accent helps a lot with police stops. That being said I've been a passenger in a car that's been pulled over for a minor violation in the states. Luckily it all ended well. The police issue wasn't the only thing that put me off and wouldn't by itself (I don't think I claimed otherwise) but it did get me reading a lot into the issue.
> Seeing risk as probability times consequences, the consequences can be unrecoverably severe.
Sorry, but I'm afraid they are skewed. You don't seem to consider the number of traffic stops, let alone other police/ public interactions that pass in an utterly mundane manner.
There are very occasional extremely high profile police shootings where the victim either is, or is proclaimed to be, innocent.
The risk of being involved in an incident like that is approaching zero.
If it is the potential consequences that are the worry, rather than the likelihood of those consequences then driving, cycling and probably crossing the road will now be off-limits, let alone moving to a foreign country.
> Regardless of the cause the operating procedures seem set to cause escalation. You'd think rather than asking the driver for papers, the officer would say "Please do not reach for your papers but please tell me where they are".
I agree - on the fragmentary video of many of these incidents it appears that the cops could have approached things better. Always worth qualifying that with the fact that the video often does not capture everything.
Worth bearing in mind that the vast number of stops carried out each year do pass without any harm coming to anyone.
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
No it isn't. There are many acknowledged cases where this sort of thing has happened and I've seen the start of the process first hand.
It tickles me pink how your rant against media rhetoric and disbar opinions then go on to post links to a daily mail article in favour of your view. Or is the daily mail the "training, qualifications and experience" that allows you to have an opinion of worth?
As it stands I have agreed with that view from my first posts on the thread. Violence against US police officers is a major problem and is a large contributor to people being shot dead, some/many people who are not violent against police offices.
> Again! Pure speculation and unfounded.
No it isn't. There are many acknowledged cases where this sort of thing has happened and I've seen the start of the process first hand.
It tickles me pink how your rant against media rhetoric and disbar opinions then go on to post links to a daily mail article in favour of your view. Or is the daily mail the "training, qualifications and experience" that allows you to have an opinion of worth?
As it stands I have agreed with that view from my first posts on the thread. Violence against US police officers is a major problem and is a large contributor to people being shot dead, some/many people who are not violent against police offices.
3
1
In reply to off-duty:
No. As I said it wasn't that that convinced me not to go west. I don't think I've ever assigned it a risk in this discussion but as I said it got me reading a lot more.
If measuring the safeness per police stop that is good logic. If measuring absolute probability of being shot dead it's largely meaningless as its only the bad stops that count. There is also a lot of use of non-lethal force such as shock guns that arises from rapid escalation.
Driving risk is up ~2x (from memory not facts) moving from the UK to the states. Being shot dead by police risk is up by ~50x. Being shot not dead is much higher risk to. Which is probably still safer than cycling. Crossing the road is one of the causes of escalation with the police, until you learn to only ever cross on green.
Indeed the hard evidence is always partial and fragmented. Given the severity of the outcome the case is clear for better quality evidence - full body cameras and always working in pairs etc on armed stops (to reduce fear, as well).
Indeed, also worth baring in mind the absolute and relative scale of the problem. Both for the public and for the police.
> Sorry, but I'm afraid they are skewed.
No. As I said it wasn't that that convinced me not to go west. I don't think I've ever assigned it a risk in this discussion but as I said it got me reading a lot more.
> You don't seem to consider the number of traffic stops, let alone other police/ public interactions that pass in an utterly mundane manner.
If measuring the safeness per police stop that is good logic. If measuring absolute probability of being shot dead it's largely meaningless as its only the bad stops that count. There is also a lot of use of non-lethal force such as shock guns that arises from rapid escalation.
> If it is the potential consequences that are the worry, rather than the likelihood of those consequences then driving, cycling and probably crossing the road will now be off-limits, let alone moving to a foreign country.
Driving risk is up ~2x (from memory not facts) moving from the UK to the states. Being shot dead by police risk is up by ~50x. Being shot not dead is much higher risk to. Which is probably still safer than cycling. Crossing the road is one of the causes of escalation with the police, until you learn to only ever cross on green.
> I agree - on the fragmentary video of many of these incidents it appears that the cops could have approached things better. Always worth qualifying that with the fact that the video often does not capture everything.
Indeed the hard evidence is always partial and fragmented. Given the severity of the outcome the case is clear for better quality evidence - full body cameras and always working in pairs etc on armed stops (to reduce fear, as well).
> Worth bearing in mind that the vast number of stops carried out each year do pass without any harm coming to anyone.
Indeed, also worth baring in mind the absolute and relative scale of the problem. Both for the public and for the police.
Post edited at 11:01
1
In reply to wintertree:
That seems vaguely reasonable - it's not the impression given by
"It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California."
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. In a similar vein - "I could have a minor car accident through no fault of my own, or I could be killed in a fatal crash." - it doesn't matter about the probability of that event - it's only the fatal that counts....?
If that is the escalation between the UK and the US then the risk is laughably low.
I'd be considerably more worried about being twice as likely to die in a car crash.
Every US police stop is armed. Body cameras are, I predict, likely to cause as many problems as they solve. If it's not on cam it didn't happen, and if your cam isn't on it must be because you are lying, are already being bandied about.
Other consequence of body cam - complaints against police down 90% (not yet published data) anecdotally this is because the complainant takes one look at their behaviour and decides they'll take a fixed penalty and disappear, rather than be charged with a more serious offence on the back of the footage.
When facial recognition software is improved we can have the footage live-streamed and analysed - or even subject to post filming analysis - interesting privacy implications....
Absolutely. Hence why I keep banging on that these encounters occur in a tiny number of cases, set against the overall number of stops.
Probably also worth considering the massive BLM coverage at the time is generally not matched by the coverage on the occasions when the full circs come out and the victim is slightly more culpable than they were first portrayed.
> No. As I said it wasn't that that convinced me not to go west. I don't think I've ever assigned it a risk in this discussion but as I said it got me reading a lot more.
That seems vaguely reasonable - it's not the impression given by
"It's something I've given careful consideration to in the past when weighing up the idea of moving to California."
> If measuring the safeness per police stop that is good logic. If measuring absolute probability of being shot dead it's largely meaningless as its only the bad stops that count. There is also a lot of use of non-lethal force such as shock guns that arises from rapid escalation.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. In a similar vein - "I could have a minor car accident through no fault of my own, or I could be killed in a fatal crash." - it doesn't matter about the probability of that event - it's only the fatal that counts....?
> Being shot dead by police risk is up by ~50x. Being shot not dead is much higher risk to. Which is probably still safer than cycling.
If that is the escalation between the UK and the US then the risk is laughably low.
I'd be considerably more worried about being twice as likely to die in a car crash.
> Indeed the hard evidence is always partial and fragmented. Given the severity of the outcome the case is clear for better quality evidence - full body cameras and always working in pairs etc on armed stops (to reduce fear, as well).
Every US police stop is armed. Body cameras are, I predict, likely to cause as many problems as they solve. If it's not on cam it didn't happen, and if your cam isn't on it must be because you are lying, are already being bandied about.
Other consequence of body cam - complaints against police down 90% (not yet published data) anecdotally this is because the complainant takes one look at their behaviour and decides they'll take a fixed penalty and disappear, rather than be charged with a more serious offence on the back of the footage.
When facial recognition software is improved we can have the footage live-streamed and analysed - or even subject to post filming analysis - interesting privacy implications....
> Indeed, also worth baring in mind the absolute and relative scale of the problem. Both for the public and for the police.
Absolutely. Hence why I keep banging on that these encounters occur in a tiny number of cases, set against the overall number of stops.
Probably also worth considering the massive BLM coverage at the time is generally not matched by the coverage on the occasions when the full circs come out and the victim is slightly more culpable than they were first portrayed.
4
1
In reply to off-duty:
In terms of ending up unreversably dead, if you have N people stopped and shot dead a year it doesn't really matter of you have 10, 100 or 1000 times as many people stopped and not shot.
Yes. Cars are 30 times more likely to kill you in the states than the police. On the other hand road safety is improving where as police shootings are increasing. More importantly one is an accident and the other is an armed agent of the state shooting someone; I think it not unreasonable that the later receive significant scrutiny from a human rights perspective. Doesn't excuse the lack of media interest in the ongoing slaughter from road accidents...
> it doesn't matter about the probability of that event - it's only the fatal that counts...?
In terms of ending up unreversably dead, if you have N people stopped and shot dead a year it doesn't really matter of you have 10, 100 or 1000 times as many people stopped and not shot.
> I'd be considerably more worried about being twice as likely to die in a car crash.
Yes. Cars are 30 times more likely to kill you in the states than the police. On the other hand road safety is improving where as police shootings are increasing. More importantly one is an accident and the other is an armed agent of the state shooting someone; I think it not unreasonable that the later receive significant scrutiny from a human rights perspective. Doesn't excuse the lack of media interest in the ongoing slaughter from road accidents...
2
In reply to TobyA:
The FBI Don't refuse to at all.
Yea and? Nothing wrong with using various forms of media to draw your own conclusion with a variety of facts from different places.
Mars bar, it's not about cherry picking, J was using it as an example. The media grabs a tag line, and the hype and gang mentality just takes over.
Not think that the very fact the title says "black man" and not just an innocent man?
If your against such police brutality where is the outrage when Officers use excessive force in white suspects? Why such deliberate segregation? Where is the outrage and riots for the kid with autism that I linked in a previous post? Surely the cause should be that the police kill too many people, black and white?
I did watch the video. I even commented saying it does look like the Officer used excessive force. I am also talking in a wider sense, a bigger picture.
Winter tree, if people think the judicial system is flawed corrupt and wrong then there is ways to go about it, rioting, looting and the destruction of the very communities that are already at a disadvantage doesn't do anything other than make the very communities suffer more. In the Ferguson riots, it was black communities and business owners that suffered.
You can have an opinion all you want, but it doesn't really matter in the long run.
The daily fail isn't a trained and qualified source at all, I was using it as an example.
And you making the comment about a large amount of people being shot by police are non violent towards police is a speculation.
The FBI showed that over 70% of police shootings were justified, 5% were unjustified and 4% were unknown or ongoing.
And a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be shot by a black man than for a black man to be shot by police.
I can't find any statistics but what's the odds of a white man being killed by a black man?
Is it more or less than the odds of being killed by police?
End of the day, regardless of debate, people see what they want to see.
And this forum format is literally the worst format and layout for replying and responding.
The FBI Don't refuse to at all.
Yea and? Nothing wrong with using various forms of media to draw your own conclusion with a variety of facts from different places.
Mars bar, it's not about cherry picking, J was using it as an example. The media grabs a tag line, and the hype and gang mentality just takes over.
Not think that the very fact the title says "black man" and not just an innocent man?
If your against such police brutality where is the outrage when Officers use excessive force in white suspects? Why such deliberate segregation? Where is the outrage and riots for the kid with autism that I linked in a previous post? Surely the cause should be that the police kill too many people, black and white?
I did watch the video. I even commented saying it does look like the Officer used excessive force. I am also talking in a wider sense, a bigger picture.
Winter tree, if people think the judicial system is flawed corrupt and wrong then there is ways to go about it, rioting, looting and the destruction of the very communities that are already at a disadvantage doesn't do anything other than make the very communities suffer more. In the Ferguson riots, it was black communities and business owners that suffered.
You can have an opinion all you want, but it doesn't really matter in the long run.
The daily fail isn't a trained and qualified source at all, I was using it as an example.
And you making the comment about a large amount of people being shot by police are non violent towards police is a speculation.
The FBI showed that over 70% of police shootings were justified, 5% were unjustified and 4% were unknown or ongoing.
And a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be shot by a black man than for a black man to be shot by police.
I can't find any statistics but what's the odds of a white man being killed by a black man?
Is it more or less than the odds of being killed by police?
End of the day, regardless of debate, people see what they want to see.
And this forum format is literally the worst format and layout for replying and responding.
2
2
1
In reply to Bootrock:
I'm struggling to follow your arguments. I feel like you are arguing against me without reading what I said.
I'm struggling to follow your arguments. I feel like you are arguing against me without reading what I said.
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
''The media grabs a tag line, and the hype and gang mentality just takes over.
Not think that the very fact the title says "black man" and not just an innocent man?
If your against such police brutality where is the outrage when Officers use excessive force in white suspects? Why such deliberate segregation? Where is the outrage and riots for the kid with autism that I linked in a previous post? Surely the cause should be that the police kill too many people, black and white? ''
Since I started the thread, the race of the guy is relevant because of the racism which is still a problem in the US (the policeman said he didn't know why he'd shot him. Ingrained (mis)perceptions about other races can have an influence quite subconsciously/unthinkingly - so there's potential for that to have applied in this shooting). I think that it'd be a mistaken jump to make, to think that I don't also think that white police using brutality on white people, or autistic people, aren't things which equally shouldn't happen, but that isn't what I happened to stumble across on facebook.
I think people on here are the wrong people to be asking, about why riots about those situations aren't also taking place...
''The media grabs a tag line, and the hype and gang mentality just takes over.
Not think that the very fact the title says "black man" and not just an innocent man?
If your against such police brutality where is the outrage when Officers use excessive force in white suspects? Why such deliberate segregation? Where is the outrage and riots for the kid with autism that I linked in a previous post? Surely the cause should be that the police kill too many people, black and white? ''
Since I started the thread, the race of the guy is relevant because of the racism which is still a problem in the US (the policeman said he didn't know why he'd shot him. Ingrained (mis)perceptions about other races can have an influence quite subconsciously/unthinkingly - so there's potential for that to have applied in this shooting). I think that it'd be a mistaken jump to make, to think that I don't also think that white police using brutality on white people, or autistic people, aren't things which equally shouldn't happen, but that isn't what I happened to stumble across on facebook.
I think people on here are the wrong people to be asking, about why riots about those situations aren't also taking place...
Post edited at 13:41
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
Yep. It's not what you stumble across on facebook, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Or that there is a bigger picture, or that it's a small snapshot of what's happening.
Yep, agreed and people on here are the wrong people to be talking about why the police use lethal force.
> Since I started the thread, the race of the guy is relevant because of the racism which is still a problem in the US (the policeman said he didn't know why he'd shot him. Ingrained (mis)perceptions about other races can have an influence quite subconsciously/unthinkingly - so there's potential for that to have applied in this shooting). I think that it'd be a mistaken jump to make, to think that I don't also think that white police using brutality on white people, or autistic people, aren't things which equally shouldn't happen, but that isn't what I happened to stumble across on facebook.
> I think people on here are the wrong people to be asking, about why riots about those situations aren't also taking place...
Yep. It's not what you stumble across on facebook, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Or that there is a bigger picture, or that it's a small snapshot of what's happening.
Yep, agreed and people on here are the wrong people to be talking about why the police use lethal force.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
Looks like it was unintended. In this case the police officer was trying to shoot the unarmed autistic person with a toy car, and accidentally hit the unarmed black guy lying down with his hands up.
So in this case it might not being racism, just plain stupidity.
Looks like it was unintended. In this case the police officer was trying to shoot the unarmed autistic person with a toy car, and accidentally hit the unarmed black guy lying down with his hands up.
So in this case it might not being racism, just plain stupidity.
2
In reply to Timmd:
Apropos of nothing particularly, other than perhaps a bit of a reality check - here's some accounts of a day ride along with US police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html?src=twr&smi...
Apropos of nothing particularly, other than perhaps a bit of a reality check - here's some accounts of a day ride along with US police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html?src=twr&smi...
In reply to Timmd:
Gun killing in the sleepy uber white middle class shires.
Have just seen a picture (Metro today page 5) of the party in full swing and there is something rather odd for such a location...... its 98% blacks.
Gun killing in the sleepy uber white middle class shires.
Have just seen a picture (Metro today page 5) of the party in full swing and there is something rather odd for such a location...... its 98% blacks.
In reply to Indy:
It's a house that get rented out for house parties. The neighbours are not amused.
It's a house that get rented out for house parties. The neighbours are not amused.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...