Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[laughing dog]

So we should just take the DA's word for it?

In life, we usually have incomplete information about everything. It's not like high school math word problems where all the information needed is in the formulation of the problem and no extraneous information is included.

We don't have to do anything, including accept guesses based on incomplete information.

No, even if the cop acted rashly and made a mistake, a mistake is not a murder.

Whether it was a mistake and whether that "mistake" is murder is why there is trial.

First of all, it is the cops' job to confront suspects, including violent and unpredictable suspects.
And second, had a cop gone off his meds and stripped naked and charged a civilian there is no way the civilian would be charged with murder and neither should he be. In fact, I doubt DA James would have charged him with anything, especially if the shooter is black and the crazy cop white.

First, It is not the job of the police to shoot unarmed people. Second, show me a case where a civilian shoots a police officer and the civilian does not get charged.

By the way, the DA excluded an exculpatory witness from the proceedings.

Don Samuel, who joined Olsen’s defense team just last week, said the grand jury did not hear from one witness who told police Hill was “attacking” and “charging” the officer.

“I don’t think there’s any question he was in reasonable fear of his safety,” Samuel said. “Put yourself in his shoes: He’s standing alone and there’s a naked guy, which is pretty scary in and of itself, charging at you. Witnesses have said he yelled, ‘Stop, stop,’ and that he backpedaled, but the guy keeps running at him. Just put yourself in his shoes.”

In DeKalb police shooting, a rare indictment, a long road to trial
He is also up for reelection in a majority black county.

We have no idea what the grand jury heard or saw. In fact, the lawyer does not say there was exculpatory evidence was withheld. He said one witness did not testify even though the defense lawyer refers to witnesses.

Connect the dots.

I prefer to deal with all the facts, not imaginary rationales.

 

[Derec]

Whether it was a mistake and whether that "mistake" is murder is why there is trial.

Indictment is the first line of defense. Not all suspicions of crime end up going to trial, much less for highest possible charge.
And when there is a possibility of a politically motivated indictment it's ok to be skeptical and not just go along with what the DA is saying.

First, It is not the job of the police to shoot unarmed people.

Unarmed doesn't mean not a threat. And making a mistake does not mean murder.

Second, show me a case where a civilian shoots a police officer and the civilian does not get charged.

I'm sure it has happened at least once in history of the United States.
But your hypothetical involved the cop acting crazy like Hill. If a police officer went off his meds, had a psychotic episode and stripped naked nobody would fault a civilian for defending themselves.
And note, Hill voluntarily went off his meds.

We have no idea what the grand jury heard or saw. In fact, the lawyer does not say there was exculpatory evidence was withheld. He said one witness did not testify even though the defense lawyer refers to witnesses.

Unless you want to allege that this lawyer is lying, we do know the grand jury did not hear from a witness who saw Hill charging at the police officer.

I prefer to deal with all the facts, not imaginary rationales.

Very funny!

 

[laughing dog]

Indictment is the first line of defense. Not all suspicions of crime end up going to trial, much less for highest possible charge.
And when there is a possibility of a politically motivated indictment it's ok to be skeptical and not just go along with what the DA is saying.

And where there is a possibility that a bigot or a goosestepping apologist for police authority is trying excuse the shooting of an unarmed black person, it is okay to reject their conjectures.

Unless you want to allege that this lawyer is lying, we do know the grand jury did not hear from a witness who saw Hill charging at the police officer.

Which does not mean that alleged exulpatory testimony was not heard. Duh.

 

[Malintent]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-usa-police-georgia-idUSKBN0M60CI20150310

The officer encountered the man, who was not wearing any clothes, in the parking lot, Alexander said at a conference published online by local broadcaster Fox5.

Alexander said the man ran at the officer, who backed up and ordered the person to stop before shooting him twice. Police did not find a weapon at the scene, he said.

I guess we can add "being naked" to the list of capital offenses for black men.

No need.. Simply charging at an officer in an obviously meth'ed out state is more than sufficient for anyone to get shot.

 

[ksen]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

 

[Malintent]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

I am fine with that.
I have no problem with cops shooting a fleeing suspect in the back (why is he fleeing)
I am fine with cops shooting a suspect that is charging directly at them (why is he attacking)

this here naked guy they shot... was he screaming, "I'm going to rip your fucking heads off and fuck your neck!!!!" as he charged them? would that make any difference to you?

The bunch of pussies are the ones that are afraid to use lethal force and just be done with the whole mess... no, they need a whole drawn out battle ending with another criminal back on the street after being released from an overcrowded prison.

 

[ksen]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

I am fine with that.
I have no problem with cops shooting a fleeing suspect in the back (why is he fleeing)
I am fine with cops shooting a suspect that is charging directly at them (why is he attacking)

this here naked guy they shot... was he screaming, "I'm going to rip your fucking heads off and fuck your neck!!!!" as he charged them? would that make any difference to you?

If he's unarmed and naked?

Nope.

The bunch of pussies are the ones that are afraid to use lethal force and just be done with the whole mess... no, they need a whole drawn out battle ending with another criminal back on the street after being released from an overcrowded prison.

The real pussies are the ones shooting naked and unarmed people. Also the ones cheering on the shooters of naked and unarmed people are the real pussies too. hth.

 

[Malintent]

I am fine with that.
I have no problem with cops shooting a fleeing suspect in the back (why is he fleeing)
I am fine with cops shooting a suspect that is charging directly at them (why is he attacking)

this here naked guy they shot... was he screaming, "I'm going to rip your fucking heads off and fuck your neck!!!!" as he charged them? would that make any difference to you?

If he's unarmed and naked?

Nope.

The bunch of pussies are the ones that are afraid to use lethal force and just be done with the whole mess... no, they need a whole drawn out battle ending with another criminal back on the street after being released from an overcrowded prison.

The real pussies are the ones shooting naked and unarmed people. Also the ones cheering on the shooters of naked and unarmed people are the real pussies too. hth.

nope. The REAL pussies are the ones afraid of controversy and want to cure the country's problems with hugs and kisses.
That which they hide behind are deceptive headlines that imply police are breaking into people's homes and shooting them in their sleep, when the facts of the matter are that a blood-thirsty, drug-crazed maniac was trying to kill them.

 

[ksen]

sounds scary

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

 

[bilby]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

Not if the officer isn't carrying a gun.

British cops are very rarely shot. And even more rarely are they shot with a police weapon.

Taking a gun into a conflict situation is a truly dumb move. A policeman's job is, in part, to break up conflict situations. Routinely armed police are a stupid idea. A VERY popular idea, true. But stupid, nonetheless.

 

[ksen]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

good

 

[Derec]

Not if the officer isn't carrying a gun.
British cops are very rarely shot. And even more rarely are they shot with a police weapon.
Taking a gun into a conflict situation is a truly dumb move. A policeman's job is, in part, to break up conflict situations. Routinely armed police are a stupid idea. A VERY popular idea, true. But stupid, nonetheless.

That is possible in Britain because they do not have many guns there. It would not be realistic in the US.
In any case, it's ridiculous to say it is murder because police policy about carrying guns should have been different.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

good

Good? Would it have been good had Michael Brown for example gained control of Darren Wilson's gun?

 

[ksen]

That is possible in Britain because they do not have many guns there. It would not be realistic in the US.
In any case, it's ridiculous to say it is murder because police policy about carrying guns should have been different.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

good

Good? Would it have been good had Michael Brown for example gained control of Darren Wilson's gun?

yes

 

[Derec]

yes

Speaks volumes about the mentality of the left when it comes to police.
If that had happened, Darren Wilson would likely be dead and Michael Brown rightly found guilty of first degree murder. But than again, #BLM movement would like to see more dead cops.

 

[ksen]

Yeah, hard to believe that if you think you've been put in an "us vs them" situation you prefer the "us" over the "them".

 

[Derec]

Yeah, hard to believe that if you think you've been put in an "us vs them" situation you prefer the "us" over the "them".

So you identify with violent criminals as "us"?

 

[ksen]

Hmmmm, did I?

 

[Derec]

Hmmmm, did I?

You said a criminal gaining control of an officer's gun and likely shooting him would be preferable to the officer shooting the perp going for his gun.

 

[laughing dog]

Because they don't teach nonlethal takedowns at the police academy anymore.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

The problem with your approach is sometimes non-dangerous civilians gets killed.