And here we go again ...

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

 

[Derec]

You realize that your response is a tacit admission that the criminal history is irrelevant in justifying a police shooting.

On one level, it doesn't matter to the act itself.
But it does affect probabilities when we do not know for sure what happened. Somebody like Patrick Kimmons, with known gang affiliations, is more likely to have acted the way police said he acted than if he was a boy scout with no history of violent crime or gang affiliation. In this case it didn't matter much, as we have video showing him shooting people, but imagine if there was no video. His history of gang violence makes the police version of events much more likely.
Remember Michael Brown, the OG of #BLM dindus? We did not have a video of the shooting. And initially the argument many people made was that this young man who was about to "start college" had no reason to attack a police officer and they viewed police version of events with suspicion. It is the fact that he had robbed a convenience before the shooting that made the police version of events make much more sense. So yes, facts surrounding a shooting are relevant to why a shooting happened. Of course, it also helps that forensic evidence also backed Wilson, not Brown.

Who Kimmons was also matters to why his life is significant enough protested for. If people are claiming "we love you Pat-Pat" over a career Crips gang banger, what does that say about that crowd? It tells me they are in favor of gang violence.

- - - Updated - - -

His mom claims his hands were up when he was shot. Is that true?

"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?

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.

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!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot. Once a threat is neutralized, there is no reason to shoot somebody.

 

[Derec]

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.

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.

Once a threat is neutralized, there is no reason to shoot somebody.

True. But since the gun was found next to Pat Pat, I do not think the threat was neutralized before he was shot.
Also, there is a finite reaction time. If you wait until police are about to shoot you to drop the gun, there may not be enough time to recall an action their motor cortex is already in the process of initiating.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Derec]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

Because it isn't germane to the incident. It is a plain smear attempt to get us to stop caring about a dead man. 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.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cops never shoot people with their hands up.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/8Evw5iAOKAI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Derec]

If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.

Context always matters and can explain how the shootee acted regardless of whether the police officers knew his or her background.
Another example from a few years ago is Keith Lamont Smith (the one where the family claimed he had no gun but instead a book, which turned out to be a lie). It turns out, he not only had a gun but served time for attempted murder for shooting some guy in Texas. He was therefore barred from owning a gun. So the context is both that he had propensity toward violence and it gives a reason why he did not want to drop a gun - he was a felon in a possession of a firearm and therefore would go back to prison. Police only knew he didn't want to drop his gun. They did not need to know more to make it a justifiable shooting. But the context still gives us information as to why he acted the way he acted.

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.

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.
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.

 

[Derec]

Cops never shoot people with their hands up.

Nice straw man. But in the case of Gilbert Flores
- 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?

 

[Derec]

Because it isn't germane to the incident. It is a plain smear attempt to get us to stop caring about a dead man.

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.

Even if someone were a disgusting whoremonger who has a long history of supporting the abuse of women,

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Hmm. It seems like a wind smelling vaguely like a hot fart is blowing gently across my argument.

I haven't even mentioned this particular incident (edit: of the OP) at all here. It is a pure hypothetical. 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.

The POINT, besides the one on the hypothetical whoremonger's TINY penis, is that the only thing that context that matters is the context of the moment: the whoremonger's support of the abuse of women doesn't make him, necessarily, a person who was abusing women when he was shot. The fact that he may have been a threat to women does not make the police officer a psychic who would know that about the whoremonger he shot.

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.

 

[Toni]

Making it personal is a sure sign you have no valid arguments.

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?

 

[Derec]

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?

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.
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.

 

[Derec]

Hmm. It seems like a wind smelling vaguely like a hot fart is blowing gently across my argument.

Did somebody boof or what?

I haven't even mentioned this particular incident (edit: of the OP) at all here. It is a pure hypothetical.

So you are derailing?

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.

To borrow laughing dog's stock phrase, you are not fooling anybody.

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.

Nobody was fixated on it; it was mentioned in the thread because the news mentioned it.
But, yes, sometimes the background of shootee might not matter to the incident. But usually it does. It mattered that "Pat Pat" was running with the Crips because that's why he was out at 3am shooting two people. That's why he had a revolver in his hands. That got him killed. His gang affiliation certainly matters more to the shooting than his reproductive status and yet the pro-Kimmons reporting never tires to tell us how many children he had managed to conceive.

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.

Again, how is somebody's gang affiliation not germane when he was shot right after shooting two people in a gang dispute?

 

[laughing dog]

If and only if the shooters know those facts. Otherwise it explains absolutely nothing about what happened nor does it justify the shooting.

Context always matters and can explain how the shootee acted regardless of whether the police officers knew his or her background.

Which has nothing to do with the justification of the shooting - as you have already admitted.

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.

You are babbling again.

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.

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.

 

[Toni]

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?

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. And
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.

I’m not sure if Pat Pat is shorter or easier but whatever. I was thinking about your many posts about young black men who are shot to death, often by police but not always. And women, particularly women of color. You seem very fond of using their first names which stands out as news media does not usually do so. And of course, you are not personally acquainted.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cops never shoot people with their hands up.

Nice straw man. But in the case of Gilbert Flores
- 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?

Well at least you're not saying it didn't happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You realize that your response is a tacit admission that the criminal history is irrelevant in justifying a police shooting.

I don't think anyone has claimed it's relevant. Rather, what some of us have said is that victim's criminal history may suggest that the story being presented of the victim is false. Michael Brown, the "gentle giant"?? Or simply so intimidating that he normally didn't need to use force? It's about impeaching a story, not about the shooting itself.