And here we go again ...

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's worse than that. Once the decision has been made to shoot we focus in the task of putting rounds on target. Our ability to determine that the threat has been neutralized is seriously impaired. This is just how the human mind works in life-and-death circumstances and not a failing of the shooter.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

 

[RavenSky]

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?

Good question Toni

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Or spelling their name backwards, or purposely misspelling it to mean something else...

 

[laughing dog]

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.

One could use the victim's history to assess the victim's credibility, but that is a personal judgment. One cannot use the history to justify a shooting - and people here do that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

You're listen to liewitnesses. A lot of the testimony in that case was shown to have come from people who couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

One could use the victim's history to assess the victim's credibility, but that is a personal judgment. One cannot use the history to justify a shooting - and people here do that.

I don't see anyone using his history to justify the shooting. Rather, they are using his history to show the police version is plausible.

 

[ZiprHead]

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

You're listen to liewitnesses. A lot of the testimony in that case was shown to have come from people who couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

No, the people in the video were not "liewitnesses". They were direct witnesses viewed on the scene.

The real liewitnesses were the ones the DA put on the stand to discredit all the witnesses. How he got away with that without objection by the ABA is a mystery.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here we go again?

Another victim of violent US slums and the for-profit prison system?

Not to mention the drug war.

Yes I forgot that.

It is what feeds the for profit prison system.

The scum capitalists in the US have figured out how to make enforced poverty and lack of opportunity profitable.

Capitalists want to make money off the drugs. Corporatists want to make money off the prisons.

 

[Arctish]

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

You're listen to liewitnesses. A lot of the testimony in that case was shown to have come from people who couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

That was the testimony of one witness who said Brown charged Wilson. She later admitted she wasn't there.

The linked video was taken with a cellphone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The eyewitnesses were yelling to Wilson and the other police officers that Brown had his hands up. One of them was demonstrating the arm position he observed. You should watch it.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see anyone using his history to justify the shooting.

Open your eyes.

Rather, they are using his history to show the police version is plausible.

Which is illogical. His history has no bearing on the plausibility of anyone's version of events.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

You're listen to liewitnesses. A lot of the testimony in that case was shown to have come from people who couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

No, the people in the video were not "liewitnesses". They were direct witnesses viewed on the scene.

The real liewitnesses were the ones the DA put on the stand to discredit all the witnesses. How he got away with that without objection by the ABA is a mystery.

When people claim to have witnessed things that were not visible from where they claimed to be they are liewitnesses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

The whole narrative was proven to be what eyewitnesses said happened.

You're listen to liewitnesses. A lot of the testimony in that case was shown to have come from people who couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

That was the testimony of one witness who said Brown charged Wilson. She later admitted she wasn't there.

The linked video was taken with a cellphone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The eyewitnesses were yelling to Wilson and the other police officers that Brown had his hands up. One of them was demonstrating the arm position he observed. You should watch it.

One admitted lying. Many more said things inconsistent with reality.

And whether his arms were up isn't really that relevant--if he was still closing that's a fake surrender.

 

[Arctish]

That was the testimony of one witness who said Brown charged Wilson. She later admitted she wasn't there.

The linked video was taken with a cellphone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The eyewitnesses were yelling to Wilson and the other police officers that Brown had his hands up. One of them was demonstrating the arm position he observed. You should watch it.

One admitted lying. Many more said things inconsistent with reality.

And whether his arms were up isn't really that relevant--if he was still closing that's a fake surrender.

You didn't watch the video, did you?

 

[ZiprHead]

No, the people in the video were not "liewitnesses". They were direct witnesses viewed on the scene.

The real liewitnesses were the ones the DA put on the stand to discredit all the witnesses. How he got away with that without objection by the ABA is a mystery.

When people claim to have witnessed things that were not visible from where they claimed to be they are liewitnesses.

And that's not the people in the video.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That was the testimony of one witness who said Brown charged Wilson. She later admitted she wasn't there.

The linked video was taken with a cellphone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The eyewitnesses were yelling to Wilson and the other police officers that Brown had his hands up. One of them was demonstrating the arm position he observed. You should watch it.

One admitted lying. Many more said things inconsistent with reality.

And whether his arms were up isn't really that relevant--if he was still closing that's a fake surrender.

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Watching the video of the testimony proves nothing about whether they are actually telling the truth.

 

[ZiprHead]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Watching the video of the testimony proves nothing about whether they are actually telling the truth.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video or remain ignorant.

 

[thebeave]

Even Eric Holder himself says the Hands Up, Don't Shoot narrative is incorrect and agrees with Darren Wilson's version of events:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-UjvtjeYIQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Watching the video of the testimony proves nothing about whether they are actually telling the truth.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video or remain ignorant.

Just because you want to believe the testimony doesn't make it true.

His Flatulence is a persuasive speaker. Does that make what he says right?

 

[ZiprHead]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video or remain ignorant.

Just because you want to believe the testimony doesn't make it true.

His Flatulence is a persuasive speaker. Does that make what he says right?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Wow, two posts in a row I get to use that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video or remain ignorant.

Just because you want to believe the testimony doesn't make it true.

His Flatulence is a persuasive speaker. Does that make what he says right?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Wow, two posts in a row I get to use that.

Still nobody has indicated why watching someone testify shows that the testimony is true.

 

[Arctish]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Wow, two posts in a row I get to use that.

Still nobody has indicated why watching someone testify shows that the testimony is true.

Your ignorance is showing. Again.