How Will the US Deal with the Black Muslim Police Officer Who Allegedly Shot and Killed an Unarmed White Woman?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It seems that the most common cause of people being shot in these situations is simply proximity to the officer. It does not matter if they are armed, because there is always a threat of them being armed. And that has been enough in several cases to justify the shooting.

This woman was from a nation where officers aren't quite as quick on the trigger. Keep in mind, this guy had to draw his gun, while in the car, and then shoot. And once again we enter a situation where our legal system can't handle this. It would seem likely this was accidental, but wholly unacceptable. But we don't have anything in the legal code to properly punish this.

Maybe accidental, maybe intentional, but certainly a mistake. But your point that we have no laws in this country to handle this and correct it is the point. Police get treated as a special class of citizen. They have sweeping powers, but there is no check on this power, and that's the problem, illustrated quite well by this event. I mean if these two guys weren't cops this would be taking a completely different course. But they're cops so now everything is different when it should not be.

 

[Mumbles]

Nope. Here we assume that when people rush to claim that the black guy must have been hulking and enraged, and just had to be shot by the poor, defenseless white cop (or neighborhood watch guy, or random dude that drove/parked near him), that *this* is racism.

Sorry, I've been here long enough to see many threads where people assume the officer was motivated by racism with approximately as much evidence as this one.

Only in cases where the evidence clearly and blatantly contradicts the cop's assumptions (such as Zimmerman's plainly ridiculous story of Trayvon the jive-spewing supervillian) - or where there's direct evidence of institutional racism (with Ferguson being about as clear an example as one could get).

 

[dismal]

Sorry, I've been here long enough to see many threads where people assume the officer was motivated by racism with approximately as much evidence as this one.

Only in cases where the evidence clearly and blatantly contradicts the cop's assumptions (such as Zimmerman's plainly ridiculous story of Trayvon the jive-spewing supervillian) - or where there's direct evidence of institutional racism (with Ferguson being about as clear an example as one could get).

Well, whatever else he was Zimmerman wasn't a cop.

So we've had just one racist cop shooting thread here I guess.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Here we assume that when people rush to claim that the black guy must have been hulking and enraged, and just had to be shot by the poor, defenseless white cop (or neighborhood watch guy, or random dude that drove/parked near him), that *this* is racism.

Sorry, I've been here long enough to see many threads where people assume the officer was motivated by racism with approximately as much evidence as this one.

Um, this thread is not about whether the officer was motivated by racism but whether racism influences how the case is handled.

 

[Mumbles]

Well, whatever else he was Zimmerman wasn't a cop.

Ddesn't matter, since it was Zimmerman's behavior, and the "Well, I guess Martin must have done something wrong being all black and scary and armed with the sidewalk" that kicked this wave of protests off.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

He will be indicted for manslaughter and probably convicted. The news media will take a "There, art thou happy?" attitude the moment the indictment is announced and then never mention it again. Politicians across the country will treat it as an isolated incident that has nothing at all to do with over-policing or the fact that American cops have been conditioned to a group of squinty-eyed cowards who hide behind their guns when they're startled.

And we'll all just move on and forget about it because justice was served and Blue Lives Matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, that's even more disturbing, if that's the case, but I don't know that this has been established.
If the shooting were not motivated from fearfulness and surprise, what was the motivation? Why would the officer consciously and deliberately have shot this woman?

I'm guessing he was sitting there with his weapon drawn and aimed at the person outside the vehicle.

Agreed and likely not justified.

Either the noise startled him causing him to discharge his weapon, or else he thought he was being fired upon and he discharged his weapon. It's just a fucking sad thing. It's too bad she even called the police. He's going to be acquitted in the end, leave the police force and that will be that.

Actually, I think both. I think he was startled and unknowingly pulled the trigger, and then responded to the gunfire as if he was being fired upon.

Again, it's just a fucking sad thing that officers are so poorly trained and can so easily kill a person, say it was unintentional, and move on. The family will get some money and that will be that. But it should never happen.

Given what we know, I would convict of manslaughter if I were on a jury. We have at least one, probably two violation of basic gun safety. To me that reaches the point of criminal negligence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, whatever else he was Zimmerman wasn't a cop.

Ddesn't matter, since it was Zimmerman's behavior, and the "Well, I guess Martin must have done something wrong being all black and scary and armed with the sidewalk" that kicked this wave of protests off.

Martin said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Why do you think he didn't do what he said he was going to do?

 

[Mumbles]

Martin said he was going to beat up Zimmerman.

False.

 

[Mumbles]

it seems to me that some folks have things a bit confused. The following is Zimmerman's 911 call:

[YOUTUBE]L04Vh4do6bY[/YOUTUBE]

The next video, which you seem to think is what occured, is actually a scene from the theatrical hit "Marvel's Avengers":

[YOUTUBE]cjp8WgXL41g[/YOUTUBE]

 

[RavenSky]

and THAT is exactly what Derec and Loren would be spouting if the ethic backgrounds of the victim and police were reversed in this case.

No we would not be.

Yes, YOU mostly certainly would be. Even after Theodore P. Wafer was convicted of murder, you insisted his (black) victim was at fault.

You even used your code word "thug" to describe an innocent woman knocking on a door because her car broken down. You dug up every sniff of anything you could find on her to shift the blame, while NOT subjecting the CONVICTED shooter to the same scrutiny.

The jury CONVICTED the white man, but you still went on and on and on that he was perfectly justified in shooting her dead.

Loren came down on the correct side on that case, but the shooter was not a cop, either.

 

[RavenSky]

And comes from a country with a culture very much compatible with that of the US. Unlike Somalia, by and large.

That depends what you mean by 'compatible'; Most of my countrymen seem to think that American culture is batshit crazy.

And most of the time, I can't blame you for that

 

[RavenSky]

He will be indicted for manslaughter and probably convicted. The news media will take a "There, art thou happy?" attitude the moment the indictment is announced and then never mention it again. Politicians across the country will treat it as an isolated incident that has nothing at all to do with over-policing or the fact that American cops have been conditioned to a group of squinty-eyed cowards who hide behind their guns when they're startled.

And we'll all just move on and forget about it because justice was served and Blue Lives Matter.

You are sadly correct (except that not all of us forget)

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, I don't see much of a difference at all, though the parallel I would draw is between Phillando and Justine.

Neither did anything wrong and both were shot by twitchy cops who didn't know what they were doing. Both shootings completely support my view that police officers normally in public contact should not be armed, except with cameras to document their interactions with the public, and to provide evidence against those charged with violence against the police, and any police shooting not recorded by a body camera would in this setting result in an instant conviction of the officer of negligent homicide.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The similarity is that the cop in both cases feared for their life and reacted, instead of thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trausti]

Diversity hire shoots immigrant; female mayor then fires lesbian police chief; replaces her with black man. Oh, 2017. 2016 has got nothing on you.

 

[Derec]

Only in cases where the evidence clearly and blatantly contradicts the cop's assumptions (such as Zimmerman's plainly ridiculous story of Trayvon the jive-spewing supervillian)

Z wasn't a cop (although he was a wannabe) and the evidence was more in favor of him than St. Skittles. For example the injuries to Z's head and lack of comparable injuries on Trayvon.
And there was zero evidence offered that Z was "motivated by racism". In fact, Trayvon is the one of whom we know that he used racist language, i.e. "creepy-ass cracker".

- or where there's direct evidence of institutional racism (with Ferguson being about as clear an example as one could get).

I disagree. Many cities use fines for revenue. It does not only become wrong when it mostly affects black people.

 

[Derec]

Yes, YOU mostly certainly would be. Even after Theodore P. Wafer was convicted of murder, you insisted his (black) victim was at fault.

Yes, she did have a big share of the guilt. I would even say the majority.
She drank to excess (almost 3 times the legal limit at time of death), she crashed her car, she banged on the guy's door like a madwoman at 4am. She is not blameless, and that has nothing to do with her skin color.

You even used your code word "thug" to describe an innocent woman knocking on a door because her car broken down.

Did I? I do not recall using that word. In any case, then narrative of that case (as usual) was as misleading as claiming that Trayvon Martin died because he had Skittles.
- She wasn't knocking. She was banging. At 4 am.
- Her car did not break down. She crashed it because she was drunk (.22% BAC three hours after the crash)
- She wasn't looking for help either. There were three hours between the crash and the banging and she ignored offers of help by people who came to the scene. So what was she doing at his house demanding entry? What did she do between the crash and the banging?

You dug up every sniff of anything you could find on her to shift the blame, while NOT subjecting the CONVICTED shooter to the same scrutiny.

This is way beyond the sniff. It is correcting the complete misrepresentation of the case.

The jury CONVICTED the white man, but you still went on and on and on that he was perfectly justified in shooting her dead.

He says the shotgun went off accidentally. I do not think McBride deserved to die, but at the same time I do think he was justified investigating loud banging at his home in Detroit (very high crime rate) while armed. While she did not deserve to die, neither does he deserve to spend decades in prison.

Especially when premeditated, cold-blooded murderers like Mary Winkler only get 60 days.

 

[Derec]

The next video, which you seem to think is what occured, is actually a scene from the theatrical hit "Marvel's Avengers"

Silly Loki. Next time, he should grab a Kel-Tec PF-9.

 

[Derec]

I know I've heard that one plenty of times.

Did Justine attack the cop and tried to get his gun?
No, but Michael Brown did. And yet the racists keep insisting that the only difference in the two cases is skin color.