His mom claims his hands were up when he was shot. Is that true? Regardless of his actions up until that point, if he was disarmed and his hands were up, they should not have shot him multiple times.
On one level, it doesn't matter to the act itself.You realize that your response is a tacit admission that the criminal history is irrelevant in justifying a police shooting.
"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?His mom claims his hands were up when he was shot. Is that true?
But he wasn't disarmed. They found a revolver next to him. So he had it until they shot him. He was armed and he had obvious willingness to use it, as he had just shot two people while police were watching. That's some brazen shit right there!Regardless of his actions up until that point, if he was disarmed and his hands were up, they should not have shot him multiple times.
"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?
That was a reference to the Michael Brown case. A narrative quickly developed that he had his hands up in surrender and the slogan "hands up don't shoot" was born, fueling violent protests and riots. That whole narrative was proven to be BS though.I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.
True. But since the gun was found next to Pat Pat, I do not think the threat was neutralized before he was shot.Once a threat is neutralized, there is no reason to shoot somebody.
It does not matterr to the act itself, which it does not matter in terms of the justification. Even though you admit it, that does not stop you from posting every time.On one level, it doesn't matter to the act itself....
It does not matterr to the act itself, which it does not matter in terms of the justification. Even though you admit it, that does not stop you from posting every time.
If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.It does not matterr to the act itself, which it does not matter in terms of the justification. Even though you admit it, that does not stop you from posting every time.
It gives context to the case. It explains the bigger picture as to how Patrick Kimmons or anybody else got shot.
It does not matterr to the act itself, which it does not matter in terms of the justification. Even though you admit it, that does not stop you from posting every time.
It gives context to the case. It explains the bigger picture as to how Patrick Kimmons or anybody else got shot. It makes a big difference whether the narrative is "Father of four gets killed by police" or "Longtime Rolling 60 Crip gets killed by police". It makes a difference if the narrative is "Young man about to start college shot by police" or "Young man who had robbed a convenience store shot by police".
Why are you so opposed to to Pat Pat's gang history being mentioned when discussing his shooting?
Context always matters and can explain how the shootee acted regardless of whether the police officers knew his or her background.If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.
It is certainly less tragic when a bad guy gets popped due to his own actions than when a generally good guy does because of a mistake made by police.I understand it may make some people feel better that a "thug" or a "bad guy" gets shot, but that is an issue for mental health experts, because it adds no explanatory value.
Nice straw man. But in the case of Gilbert FloresCops never shoot people with their hands up.
Context is germane. And a smear is something untruthful. It's not smearing Pat Pat by pointing out he was running with the Rolling 60 Crips. Or that he had shot two people right before he was shot himself.Because it isn't germane to the incident. It is a plain smear attempt to get us to stop caring about a dead man.
Consensual sex work is not "abuse of women".Even if someone were a disgusting whoremonger who has a long history of supporting the abuse of women,
if they were shot and killed by police on a domestic abuse call, it would matter to me and I would object to the shooting, especially if there was evidence that the call was fraudulently made, or of witnesses or camera evidence that they were unarmed, or if the police shot the whoremonger because they came to the wrong house.
Context is germane. And a smear is something untruthful. It's not smearing Pat Pat by pointing out he was running with the Rolling 60 Crips. Or that he had shot two people right before he was shot himself.
Consensual sex work is not "abuse of women".
Making it personal is a sure sign you have no valid arguments.
if they were shot and killed by police on a domestic abuse call, it would matter to me and I would object to the shooting, especially if there was evidence that the call was fraudulently made, or of witnesses or camera evidence that they were unarmed, or if the police shot the whoremonger because they came to the wrong house.
In the case of Pat Pat there was no malicious call nor a wrong house. Police saw him shoot two people, confronted him while he still had his gun, and shot him. It's a textbook clean shoot. Protesters calling it "murder" are ridiculous. It is one thing being upset over actual police brutality. This is not it.
Making it personal is a sure sign you have no valid arguments.
You mean "Pat Pat"? That is not a "cute knick[sic] name" I came up with. It was Kimmons' street name, basically the thug version of DBA.Does this explain your use of the first names or cute knick names you like to give them, of women and persons of color in your posts?
Did somebody boof or what?Hmm. It seems like a wind smelling vaguely like a hot fart is blowing gently across my argument.
So you are derailing?I haven't even mentioned this particular incident (edit: of the OP) at all here. It is a pure hypothetical.
To borrow laughing dog's stock phrase, you are not fooling anybody.But if you want to judge "disgusting whoremonger" to be applicable to yourself, that's your business. Any resemblance to individuals living or dead is purely coincidental.
Nobody was fixated on it; it was mentioned in the thread because the news mentioned it.In fact I remember a very similar story where a black man was shot by a drunken off-duty officer, and someone or another was pretty fixated on the weed they found in the man's apartment. He was, in fact, a lot like the purely hypothetical whoremonger who got hypothetically shot.
Edit: And the next time someone drags in details not germane to a police shooting, I'm fairly certain our hypothetical whoremonger will make another appearance.
Which has nothing to do with the justification of the shooting - as you have already admitted.Context always matters and can explain how the shootee acted regardless of whether the police officers knew his or her background.If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.
You are babbling again.It is certainly less tragic when a bad guy gets popped due to his own actions than when a generally good guy does because of a mistake made by police.
I suppose so. But those people who express dislike and hate and feel the need to smear someone they never met really need those mental health experts.Where mental health experts would be useful is examining all those people expressing love for people like Pat Pat. Especially if they did not know him in life.
You mean "Pat Pat"? That is not a "cute knick[sic] name" I came up with. It was Kimmons' street name, basically the thug version of DBA. AndDoes this explain your use of the first names or cute knick names you like to give them, of women and persons of color in your posts?
And I use it to avoid using Kimmons a 1000 times. I.e. for variety. And if "Pat Pat" is good enough for protesters who likely never met him, it should be good enough for me.
Nice straw man. But in the case of Gilbert FloresCops never shoot people with their hands up.
- he held a knife in one of the raised hands.
- the deputies are facing trial.
San Antonio Cops Will Face Trial for Killing Man With Hands Up
What does that have to do with Pat Pat?
You realize that your response is a tacit admission that the criminal history is irrelevant in justifying a police shooting.Why is a criminal history relevant in justifying a police shooting?
It disproves the apologetics family and friends give and that media is quick to disseminate. "Gentle giants spreading the word of Jesus Christ" and all that.