Another unarmed black teenager killed by police

[Mumbles]

You shouldn't, because its brainless nonsense. Unless these were the first black people this officer ever saw while on duty, those "explanations" are idiotic and clearly false. Why didn't he shoot every black person at the party? Why didn't he shoot every black person he saw on the way to the party? Why didn't he shoot all his fellow officers that are black?

That was not Loren's assertion. The assertion is that a police officer would not shoot a person for no reason. A list of people shot by police for no reason is, necessarily, a refutation of this assertion.

I mean, I guess you could remove a couple of them if you count "reached for his ID after I asked him to present ID" as a "reason" to shoot someone. But in that case, we're arguing something asinine - and you're still left with people like Sean Bell, who was shot while lying on his stomach with his hands cuffed behind his back.

And this doesn't count people like Freddie Grey, who was "mysteriously" injured while in the back of a police car, the people who somehow shot themselves in the face while their hands were cuffed behind their backs, the videos of police simply running up and punching and/or kicking people in the head, and so forth. Nor does it count people like Aiyana Stanley-Jones, who was set on fire and shot in the face because a SWAT team raided her home - which was the wrong home. And the various teenaged girls that some police seem to enjoy body slamming. And it just goes on and on and on...

But in any case, try to pay attention to the conversation next time, before you ironically claim that someone else's argument is "idiotic and clearly false".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think there must be more to this case than we are seeing as the cop's shooting makes no sense at all here.

You are SO fucking predictable...

Early on, there were all kinds of 'more' being reported: the kids were aggressively backing into the police, were armed, were leaving the party because the police had been called, etc.

However, not only has eye witness testimony disproved this but so have the police's own video.

Whether the officer was an out and out bigot or whether he panicked, I don't know.

Even a bigoted officer isn't going to out-and-out shoot someone for no reason.

Not a reason. Just an excuse.

Well...Not quite true. There *is* a group named Black Lives Matter, although their local offices run more or less independently.

How is the "more or less" even warranted here? They run COMPLETELY independently. There is literally NO authority anywhere that can sanction or unsanction a local office/movement/organizer as as part of the overall "Black lives matter" movement. I could go into my home office right now, start up a website and call myself the local BLM office and the only thing that makes it true or untrue is how many people listen to me when I start ranting. That's it, that's all.

To be 100% clear here: BLM is not actually a group. BLM is a movement that MANY groups have decided to become part of. Some of those groups were organized specifically to be part of the movement (e.g. to help organize protests and raise awareness for this issue) others pre-date the movement by several years.

 

[Toni]

What LD, Mumbles and ksen said.

I was just going to say racism and bigotry and cowardice. I'll defer to them.

You shouldn't, because its brainless nonsense. Unless these were the first black people this officer ever saw while on duty, those "explanations" are idiotic and clearly false. Why didn't he shoot every black person at the party? Why didn't he shoot every black person he saw on the way to the party? Why didn't he shoot all his fellow officers that are black?
His racism can be a factor in impacting how he assesses a situation, but their has to be some situation to assess. All Loren is asking is what did the cop even think they saw or thought was happening and why did they they think that at that moment rather than every other time they saw black people?

Really, dude? I get that you are something of an authority on brainless nonsense but really?

No, Loren is saying that since the police officer shot an unarmed 15 year old through the window of a car, the police officer must have had a reason.

I'm sure the officer did have a reason or two or three, take your pick

a)racism
b)bigotry
c)cowardice
d)all of the above

Tamir Rice, John Crawford 3rd, Philando Castille, Sean Bell, Levar Jones, Terence Crutcher, and Charles Kinsey all say hello.

...well, Jones and Kinsey do. The rest are dead because jumpy police shot them without cause.

"Thugs".

Black people.

Yep. Sounds right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You shouldn't, because its brainless nonsense. Unless these were the first black people this officer ever saw while on duty, those "explanations" are idiotic and clearly false. Why didn't he shoot every black person at the party? Why didn't he shoot every black person he saw on the way to the party? Why didn't he shoot all his fellow officers that are black?

That was not Loren's assertion. The assertion is that a police officer would not shoot a person for no reason. A list of people shot by police for no reason is, necessarily, a refutation of this assertion.

I mean, I guess you could remove a couple of them if you count "reached for his ID after I asked him to present ID" as a "reason" to shoot someone. But in that case, we're arguing something asinine - and you're still left with people like Sean Bell, who was shot while lying on his stomach with his hands cuffed behind his back.

"Reached for his ID" is too broad.

As for Sean Bell, I think you must be confused here. He was shot when he struck a police officer with his car and then hit a police vehicle.

And this doesn't count people like Freddie Grey, who was "mysteriously" injured while in the back of a police car, the people who somehow shot themselves in the face while their hands were cuffed behind their backs, the videos of police simply running up and punching and/or kicking people in the head, and so forth. Nor does it count people like Aiyana Stanley-Jones, who was set on fire and shot in the face because a SWAT team raided her home - which was the wrong home. And the various teenaged girls that some police seem to enjoy body slamming. And it just goes on and on and on...

Again, you're looking from too far back. Examine the details.

 

[fast]

I think there must be more to this case than we are seeing as the cop's shooting makes no sense at all here.

I didn't get to read the link in the OP, but the following passage is from a link later in the thread:

In a phone interview with The Post on Sunday night, Merritt said that Jordan, his 16-year-old brother and three other teenage boys were at a party on Baron Drive when they learned that police were on the way.

They went to the car parked outside, saw flashlights and heard gunshots, Merritt said. As they climbed into the car, the teens apparently heard somebody yell profanities. Then they were being fired upon.

They fled for about a block, Merritt said, before they noticed that there was smoke coming from Jordan’s head. The driver of the car, the boy’s older brother, stopped the car, and they flagged down an approaching police cruiser for help.

I wonder what other comprehended words surrounded those profanities.

 

[Arctish]

I didn't get to read the link in the OP, but the following passage is from a link later in the thread:

In a phone interview with The Post on Sunday night, Merritt said that Jordan, his 16-year-old brother and three other teenage boys were at a party on Baron Drive when they learned that police were on the way.

They went to the car parked outside, saw flashlights and heard gunshots, Merritt said. As they climbed into the car, the teens apparently heard somebody yell profanities. Then they were being fired upon.

They fled for about a block, Merritt said, before they noticed that there was smoke coming from Jordan’s head. The driver of the car, the boy’s older brother, stopped the car, and they flagged down an approaching police cruiser for help.

I wonder what other comprehended words surrounded those profanities.

"Holy <profanlty> that cop's gonna <profanity> kill somebody"?

 

[Tigers!]

What is in the water in the USA?
You are so trigger happy. First instinct shoot someone, 2nd, 3rd repeat.
White, non-white, police, civvies it doesn't seem to matter.
Too many guns, too many idiots.

 

[PyramidHead]

View attachment 10955

BLM isn't a group with a headquarters and a set of principles that everybody agrees with. It's a sentiment expressed by different people for different reasons.

Well...Not quite true. There *is* a group named Black Lives Matter, although their local offices run more or less independently. And no, they do not automatically protest whenever a black person is killed by police. They *have* however, discussed the murder of Jeremy Mardis, who was a white 6-year old boy - they did not protest, because the two (black) police officers were quickly fired and indicted. They did protest, among other issues, Trump's muslim ban, and the DAPL, as those were ongoing issues at the time. The Ferguson PD earned heavy attention because the entire PD, and surrounding departments, attacked the community of Ferguson while they were grieving for Mike Brown.

however, much of what the group gets blamed for has nothing to do with the group itself, so this is worth noting.

You could say the same about Occupy, they had local headquarters and chapters too. Point is, there is no entry test, nothing to stop anybody from saying or doing anything they want to and adding "#BLM" in solidarity with the movement.Which is why saying "BLM tends to..." when there's no way to separate the 'official' actions from the associated hashtags doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[fast]

I didn't get to read the link in the OP, but the following passage is from a link later in the thread:


I wonder what other comprehended words surrounded those profanities.

"Holy <profanlty> that cop's gonna <profanity> kill somebody"?

No, what I wonder is what other comprehended words ACTUALLY (not merely possibly) surrounded those profanities.

 

[Arctish]

"Holy <profanlty> that cop's gonna <profanity> kill somebody"?

No, what I wonder is what other comprehended words ACTUALLY (not merely possibly) surrounded those profanities.

I get that. But I also wonder who was using the profanities, Officer Pottymouth or a teenager at a party.

 

[fast]

No, what I wonder is what other comprehended words ACTUALLY (not merely possibly) surrounded those profanities.

I get that. But I also wonder who was using the profanities, Officer Pottymouth or a teenager at a party.

There's some clues that while in no way guarantees a conclusion, I'm inclined for my suspicions to be swayed towards it being officer Pottymouth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't get to read the link in the OP, but the following passage is from a link later in the thread:

In a phone interview with The Post on Sunday night, Merritt said that Jordan, his 16-year-old brother and three other teenage boys were at a party on Baron Drive when they learned that police were on the way.

They went to the car parked outside, saw flashlights and heard gunshots, Merritt said. As they climbed into the car, the teens apparently heard somebody yell profanities. Then they were being fired upon.

They fled for about a block, Merritt said, before they noticed that there was smoke coming from Jordan’s head. The driver of the car, the boy’s older brother, stopped the car, and they flagged down an approaching police cruiser for help.

I wonder what other comprehended words surrounded those profanities.

And you're taking the word of the family as to what happened?!?!

 

[ksen]

Why shouldn't we?

 

[Mumbles]

I didn't get to read the link in the OP, but the following passage is from a link later in the thread:


I wonder what other comprehended words surrounded those profanities.

And you're taking the word of the family as to what happened?!?!

Yes. It helps that the PD's account lines up pretty well with the family's account.

It also helps that the officer, one Roy Oliver, is being charged with murder.

 

[laughing dog]

Why shouldn't we?

Because they are "thugs" and, as "thugs" they lie.

And, as we know, the police are always to be believed when defending themselves even when they initially claim things that their own video contradict (like the claim a car was backing towards them in an aggressive manner when the video shows that it was moving forward). However, when the police are throwing a fellow officer under the bus (i.e. doing the right thing), they are not to be believed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why shouldn't we?

History. They always say the guy didn't provoke it. There's a huge payoff from pulling it off.

 

[ksen]

Why shouldn't we?

History. They always say the guy didn't provoke it. There's a huge payoff from pulling it off.

You know the history of this family?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What is in the water in the USA?

Cowardice, mostly.

As a people, we are really REALLY bad at dealing with interpersonal conflicts. For whatever reason, we have an older generation of baby boomers whose default tactic is passive-aggressive conflict avoidance, setting up hurdles for their rivals/peers/teammates to jump over rather than actually communicating what the issue is. The generation AFTER them, not knowing what else to do, splits one of two ways: they follow the passive-aggressive model of their parents, or they swing to opposite extremes: hyper-passive (never raising their voices at all and shrinking away from confrontation like a scared rabbit) or they become hyper-aggressive, stocking up on guns and ammo, voting for Donald Trump, or joining the police departments so they never have to put up with anyone else's shit. And some people will do both: become hyper-aggressive by mindset while being hyper-passive in practice.

Meanwhile, patiently talking to people and figuring out how to communicate like rational adults has become such a lost art that nobody seems to even realize it's a skill that exists, let alone that could be learned.

And at the core of it is, simply, cowardice. You're standing in line with some asshole who has his music up way too loud, about a third of people will stand there and say nothing for twenty minutes and wait for him to go away, another third will pull some sort of dick move like take an extra long time getting out of his way or (if they're in line in front of him) make sure to talk really slowly or else make additional requests so he has to wait longer. Those with badges will realize "Wait, I don't have to be afraid of him, I can directly confront him right now!" and then pull a gun on him and DEMAND that he turn off his music and RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!

It's the rare American who calmly taps the guy on the shoulder and says "Excuse me, could you please turn that down a bit?"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why shouldn't we?

History. They always say the guy didn't provoke it.

And the police always say that he DID. Even when the video evidence explicitly contradicts this. There are more incentives for the police to lie than the victims; in particular, a judge is more likely to believe a lie told by a police officer than a truth told by a civilian, therefore a police officer has no reason whatsoever to tell a truth that casts himself in a negative light.

 

[ZiprHead]

I read on facebook that the cops family said the cop suffered with PTSD (have not confirmed, it's FB). If so, why was he allowed to carry a gun and a badge?