Father gunned down in his doorway

[ksen]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po...ep-brought-dinner-family/#fPvbKZOlLyTeiCWa.01

*sigh*

 

[laughing dog]

From the link, this illustrates the crux of the problem

“Let’s be very clear: The officer was doing what we expect him to do, and that is, investigating crimes that neighbors are telling him are occurring in that apartment complex. This one went bad, from the standpoint of how it ended, but the officer was doing exactly what we want him to do,” Police Sergeant Crump said.

 

[Derec]

From USA Today:

The women and the family's attorneys said they were dismayed by how Rumain Brisbon had been portrayed in the media and by police as a criminal. Brisbon had a criminal record.
[...]
Court records show that Brisbon was serving probation stemming from a 1998 burglary conviction. He also was booked on suspicion of driving under the influence twice, in 2009 and in October. He also had a marijuana conviction.

I wonder why anybody would want to portray Brisbon as a criminal.

The article from the OP claims that he legally owned a firearm but would that be possible for somebody who was on probation for burglary (a felony)?

 

[laughing dog]

From USA Today:

The women and the family's attorneys said they were dismayed by how Rumain Brisbon had been portrayed in the media and by police as a criminal. Brisbon had a criminal record.
[...]
Court records show that Brisbon was serving probation stemming from a 1998 burglary conviction. He also was booked on suspicion of driving under the influence twice, in 2009 and in October. He also had a marijuana conviction.

I wonder why anybody would want to portray Brisbon as a criminal.

The article from the OP claims that he legally owned a firearm but would that be possible for somebody who was on probation for burglary?

Other than the usual smearing of the victim, how is the relevant to the shooting of another unarmed civilian by the police?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

From USA Today:

I wonder why anybody would want to portray Brisbon as a criminal.

The article from the OP claims that he legally owned a firearm but would that be possible for somebody who was on probation for burglary?

Other than the usual smearing of the victim, how is the relevant to the shooting of another unarmed civilian by the police?

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Other than the usual smearing of the victim, how is the relevant to the shooting of another unarmed civilian by the police?

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

And you must be gunned down in front of your family so that they can learn that this is what waits for them, whether they actually do anything or not.

 

[KeepTalking]

From USA Today:

The women and the family's attorneys said they were dismayed by how Rumain Brisbon had been portrayed in the media and by police as a criminal. Brisbon had a criminal record.
[...]
Court records show that Brisbon was serving probation stemming from a 1998 burglary conviction. He also was booked on suspicion of driving under the influence twice, in 2009 and in October. He also had a marijuana conviction.

I wonder why anybody would want to portray Brisbon as a criminal.

The article from the OP claims that he legally owned a firearm but would that be possible for somebody who was on probation for burglary (a felony)?

16 years seems like a very long term of probation, I can only assume that USA Today has their facts wrong, and that he was no longer on probation at the time this happened.

 

[Derec]

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

If what police said was correct - that he ran and was grabbing an object inside his pant pocket when he was shot than the shooting appears justified.
I brought up his criminal background for three reasons
- to ask whether the gun could possibly be legal given that he was on probation for a felony
- because prior criminal behavior makes it more likely he acted in the way police describes
- to simply point to the ridiculousness of the mother complaining that her "good boy" was "portrayed as a criminal" when criminal is exactly what he was, so that portrayal is accurate.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Freethought project is not a good source.

 

[Derec]

And you must be gunned down in front of your family so that they can learn that this is what waits for them, whether they actually do anything or not.

He didn't have to run from the police (much less toward his apartment). He didn't have to put his hands in his pockets.
And yet again just about the very worst possible example of alleged police misconduct is chosen.

 

[RavenSky]

Other than the usual smearing of the victim, how is the relevant to the shooting of another unarmed civilian by the police?

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

Unless you are #CrimingWhileWhite

 

[KeepTalking]

The USA Today story also includes this account from the police:

Police said that the officer told Brisbon to show his hands but that Brisbon stuffed his hands into his waistband. They said that the officer drew his weapon and that Brisbon ran toward nearby apartments. A short foot chase ensued, followed by a struggle in which they tumbled into an apartment, police said.

This does not jive with the previous account, which states that Brisbon was carrying two McDonalds bags containing dinner for his family. I'm not sure how one puts both hands in their waistband when their hands are full with fast food bags. Of course, we can be sure that there is absolutely no chance that the police officer just made this up as an excuse to draw his weapon in pursuit of an unarmed "suspect", because police officers never falsify their stories like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From USA Today:

I wonder why anybody would want to portray Brisbon as a criminal.

The article from the OP claims that he legally owned a firearm but would that be possible for somebody who was on probation for burglary?

Other than the usual smearing of the victim, how is the relevant to the shooting of another unarmed civilian by the police?

Fuck that! How is it even relevant to calling him a criminal? Robbery 16 years ago? DUI and Marijuana charges? This is a "criminal"? Robbery bad, but it was 16 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

And you must be gunned down in front of your family so that they can learn that this is what waits for them, whether they actually do anything or not.

He didn't have to run from the police (much less toward his apartment).

Wait... so now running away from the Police is due cause for shooting someone?

 

[Derec]

16 years seems like a very long term of probation, I can only assume that USA Today has their facts wrong, and that he was no longer on probation at the time this happened.

It does, but you can look his criminal cases here and see that criminal restitution and probation was for the 1998 burglary case (tried in 1999) was instituted in 2012. I am guessing his brushes with the law since the burglary constituted probation violations which prevented him from being done with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

If what police said was correct - that he ran and was grabbing an object inside his pant pocket when he was shot than the shooting appears justified.
I brought up his criminal background for three reasons
- to ask whether the gun could possibly be legal given that he was on probation for a felony
- because prior criminal behavior makes it more likely he acted in the way police describes
- to simply point to the ridiculousness of the mother complaining that her "good boy" was "portrayed as a criminal" when criminal is exactly what he was, so that portrayal is accurate.

These are the same reasons that justified the prosecution and conviction of suspects of crimes they didn't commit and have since been let out of prison and exonerated.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

16 years seems like a very long term of probation, I can only assume that USA Today has their facts wrong, and that he was no longer on probation at the time this happened.

It does, but you can look his criminal cases here and see that criminal restitution and probation was for the 1998 burglary case (tried in 1999) was instituted in 2012. I am guessing his brushes with the law since the burglary constituted probation violations which prevented him from being done with it.

Man, been a while since I've used that site. So this guy is definitely a gang banger! Driving without a license, repeatedly! Fucker deserved to be iced.

 

[ksen]

derec never disapoints

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Once you commit one crime, no matter how petty, you can never be rehabilitated and it is the duty of police to gun you down.

And you must be gunned down in front of your family so that they can learn that this is what waits for them, whether they actually do anything or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU1w5LHBr3c

 

[Derec]

Man, been a while since I've used that site. So this guy is definitely a gang banger! Driving without a license, repeatedly! Fucker deserved to be iced.

Strawman. Nobody is saying that driving without licence got him killed, at least not directly. But his history of lawbreaking (including marijuana, assault, and DUIs in addition to driving without licence and failure to appear) since his burglary conviction shows wanton disregard for the law.
It also shows how ridiculous the Freethought Project is. If he only had a legal firearm (while under probation for a felony?), legal weed (he must have glaucoma or something), legal prescription drugs (must be a really ill 34 year old) and a couple of happy meals, why did he run? Why did he not show the cop his hands?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here's the quote I was looking for:

Javert: Reform is a discredited fantasy. Modern science tells us that people are by nature, law breakers or law abiders. A wolf could wear sheep's clothing but he's still a wolf.