Cop Indicted For Murder

[Derec]

But it takes a certain kind of person to make those judgments--thug, baby mamma, breeding irresponsibly-- about people he doesn't know,

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

especially when those judgments are leveled against people of a certain complexion.

Why should "certain complexion" enter into it?
Are you saying that if Tyrone Harris was white, it would not be as bad calling him a thug?
Or that if Sam DuBose was white it would not be as bad commenting on his 13-20 children?

Now who is being that "very special type of person" ...

 

[Toni]

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

especially when those judgments are leveled against people of a certain complexion.

Why should "certain complexion" enter into it?
Are you saying that if Tyrone Harris was white, it would not be as bad calling him a thug?
Or that if Sam DuBose was white it would not be as bad commenting on his 13-20 children?

Now who is being that "very special type of person" ...

Go look in the mirror.

I am done with you.

 

[RavenSky]

Not really. It's a correct observation that a certain segment of the "black community"...

You apparently don't get the point of Ksen's post so I guess I will have to spell it out for you.

"anything to defend a black"

A black what? Anything to defend a black dress? Anything to defend a black book? Oh... right... Loren was talking about a PERSON.. a human being... in most cases, a human being that was KILLED by a police officer. And Loren reduced that HUMAN BEING to a description of the color of the person's skin. That is what is very telling.

I wish I could say I am surprised that you didn't get it, but I'm not.

 

[RavenSky]

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

especially when those judgments are leveled against people of a certain complexion.

Why should "certain complexion" enter into it?
Are you saying that if Tyrone Harris was white, it would not be as bad calling him a thug?
Or that if Sam DuBose was white it would not be as bad commenting on his 13-20 children? ...

No. Her point is that if Sam DuBose and Tyrone Harris had been white, the words would not have been applied to them.

 

[laughing dog]

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

Well, because "thug" and "baby mama" are opinions not factual information and because some people seem to only use those terms for black people.

Since you have no problem with people posting publicly available relevant"information", you would not be upset if posters here posted their fact-based opinions of "racist" or "misogynist" of other posters here at will?

 

[laughing dog]

What's wrong with these words?
Thug is a lowlife criminal regardless of race. "Baby mama", while the term did originate in the "black community" it is not limited to it.
People of all races can be thugs or breed irresponsibly. But only blacks have some sort of immunity against being criticized for it. Go figure!
"Good shoot" and "bad shoot" are also race invariant.

Well, when people like you who feel the need to freely (and often inaccurately) to describe white people instead of exclusively black people, your response will be more convincing. The only person here you are fooling is yourself.

 

[ksen]

Not really. It's a correct observation that a certain segment of the "black community"...

You apparently don't get the point of Ksen's post so I guess I will have to spell it out for you.

"anything to defend a black"

A black what? Anything to defend a black dress? Anything to defend a black book? Oh... right... Loren was talking about a PERSON.. a human being... in most cases, a human being that was KILLED by a police officer. And Loren reduced that HUMAN BEING to a description of the color of the person's skin. That is what is very telling.

I wish I could say I am surprised that you didn't get it, but I'm not.

I'm pretty cryptic that way.

 

[Derec]

Well, when people like you who feel the need to freely (and often inaccurately) to describe white people instead of exclusively black people, your response will be more convincing. The only person here you are fooling is yourself.

There is no need because nobody is defending a white person doing the same things. But again, there is this kneejerk defense of every black suspect by parts of black community.

- - - Updated - - -

A black what? Anything to defend a black dress? Anything to defend a black book? Oh... right... Loren was talking about a PERSON.. a human being... in most cases, a human being that was KILLED by a police officer. And Loren reduced that HUMAN BEING to a description of the color of the person's skin. That is what is very telling.

The reduction comes from the people automatically defending black criminals. Loren was merely describing this reduction.

 

[ksen]

If only the blacks acted more like normal white people.

 

[RavenSky]

A black what? Anything to defend a black dress? Anything to defend a black book? Oh... right... Loren was talking about a PERSON.. a human being... in most cases, a human being that was KILLED by a police officer. And Loren reduced that HUMAN BEING to a description of the color of the person's skin. That is what is very telling.

The reduction comes from the people automatically defending black criminals. Loren was merely describing this reduction.

Loren REDUCED a HUMAN BEING to the words "a black" - that is the point. Not who/what he believed he was addressing, but his actual choice of words including the words he left out (such as "person")

I know you understand what I am saying. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what is wrong with the sentence "Anything to defend a black." is a reflection on you, too.

 

[atrib]

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

especially when those judgments are leveled against people of a certain complexion.

Why should "certain complexion" enter into it?
Are you saying that if Tyrone Harris was white, it would not be as bad calling him a thug?
Or that if Sam DuBose was white it would not be as bad commenting on his 13-20 children?

Now who is being that "very special type of person" ...

Dubose's past had little or nothing to do with him getting shot in the head at point blank range by a killer cop. His skin color likely did.

It is irrelevant that Dubose had a colorful past. He had a right to due process just like any other person in this country. The shooting itself may have been a result of criminal incompetence, or of active malice on the part of the killer cop. The cop is the criminal here, because he apparently killed a human being with no cause. Your attempts to characterize Dubose as a "thug" and a "baby mama" is nothing but an attempt to distract our attention from the fact that the killer cop is facing criminal charges for his actions. And to dehumanize the VICTIM here, Dubose, so it becomes easier in your mind to justify the killing. This is a consistent pattern of behavior with you and Loren, which leads many of us here to conclude that you are racist.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no need because nobody is defending a white person doing the same things.

Really? What was the name of that white "thug" who shot a black kid because he was playing his car music too loud? You are not fooling anyone.

But again, there is this kneejerk defense of every black suspect by parts of black community.

With bullshit observations like that, you are not fooling anyone.

 

[Rhea]

The cop is the criminal here, because he apparently killed a human being with no cause. Your attempts to characterize Dubose as a "thug" and a "baby mama" is nothing but an attempt to distract our attention from the fact that the killer cop is facing criminal charges for his actions. And to dehumanize the VICTIM here, Dubose, so it becomes easier in your mind to justify the killing the shoot. This is a consistent pattern of behavior with you and Loren, which leads many of us here to conclude that you are racist.

Just for consistency...

Because "a shoot" is what hunters do when they plan to kill an animal.
Loren needs to Google "going on a shoot"
And he'll know, finally, what "a shoot" really means.
Or perhaps he already knows, and that's why he uses it. ( <== my guess)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

defend a black.

a black.

..

And this is supposed to make a point somehow?

I'm objecting to the racism of bending over backwards to assume the guy is innocent because he's black.

- - - Updated - - -

How in fuck's sake could he have possibly fired with his hand trapped in the car?

It's a handgun--held in one hand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wait, so NOW you're saying that the cop reaches in "to turn off the engine" (i.e. something abysmally stooopid) then "the moron" (not the one who reached into a car while holding a gun to a guy's head, but the guy who was in the car) stepped on the gas, THEN the cop realized he was in danger, THEN he draws his gun and THEN shoots?

Or, wait, no the gun was out all that time. You're trying to pretend that didn't happen. Why did he pull his stupid gun again? It wasn't related to the gas pedal because that hadn't happened yet.

So WHY DID HE DRAW HIS GUN?


No, he doesn't get to shoot it just because he already had it out when he did something (additionally) stupid. Your excuse that it was drawn as a response to danger is not shown in the video.

So try again. Name the (perceived) danger that was present at the time the gun was drawn.


(bearing in mind that you're not even right that the engine revved prior to the shot, but you story falls down in so many places, I needed to step through the ridiculous one mucky boot at a time)

You see the officer's hands earlier in the stop--no gun.

And it doesn't matter how stupid you were in putting yourself in harm's way, that has no bearing on self defense. What counts is where the threat is coming from--and in this case it's coming from the guy trying to escape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You continue to make up shit as you go along. The black man who was shot to death is the VICTIM. The cop, who was supposed to be upholding the law and serving the community is the KILLER. The cop shot and killed a man on the street, perhaps due to criminal negligence, perhaps out of malice (that is yet to be determined). You admit the cop should not have made the mistake of reaching into the car, but you refuse to acknowledge that the cop's mistake resulted in a human being being killed. At best, the cop fucked up, and that still leaves him responsible for the killing. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge this fact? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that black people are equally deserving of the protection of the law, and that cops who kill people through bad decisions or through outright malice deserve to be punished for their actions?

You are assuming the roles despite the evidence.

The fact that the cop made a mistake in reaching into the car might matter as far as his job is concerned but it has nothing to do with the shooting. Reaching into the car created no threat. The driver resisting arrest created the threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not what it looks like in this video (posted by me earlier):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDiyo9qjISg

As usual, the news media trying to throw gas on the fire for the sake of eyeballs.

Your own "evidence" shows that his right hand is still on the steering wheel. That's not surrendering.

I also don't think the officer was grabbing his seat belt. Rather, that's the effect of the car accelerating.

Think very carefuly about who you are calling a liar.

It's clear that "reporter" is a liar.

And I find it ironic that you misspelled carefully.

- - - Updated - - -

..

Says a lot, doesn't it.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

Maybe I'm doing something wrong with the search but I can't find any posts of mine that contain the words "baby mama".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

The video gives clear evidence, when evaluated with knowledge of basic physics

Stop pretending that you are applying anything resembling "knowledge of basic physics" to your reasoning. You're not.

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

Well, because "thug" and "baby mama" are opinions

They're not even opinions. They are allusions to racial stereotypes that are themselves popular citations in race-baiting rhetoric.

Wait, so NOW you're saying that the cop reaches in "to turn off the engine" (i.e. something abysmally stooopid) then "the moron" (not the one who reached into a car while holding a gun to a guy's head, but the guy who was in the car) stepped on the gas, THEN the cop realized he was in danger, THEN he draws his gun and THEN shoots?

Or, wait, no the gun was out all that time. You're trying to pretend that didn't happen. Why did he pull his stupid gun again? It wasn't related to the gas pedal because that hadn't happened yet.

So WHY DID HE DRAW HIS GUN?


No, he doesn't get to shoot it just because he already had it out when he did something (additionally) stupid. Your excuse that it was drawn as a response to danger is not shown in the video.

So try again. Name the (perceived) danger that was present at the time the gun was drawn.


(bearing in mind that you're not even right that the engine revved prior to the shot, but you story falls down in so many places, I needed to step through the ridiculous one mucky boot at a time)

You see the officer's hands earlier in the stop--no gun.

And it doesn't matter how stupid you were in putting yourself in harm's way, that has no bearing on self defense. What counts is where the threat is coming from--and in this case it's coming from the guy trying to escape.

The putative "attempt to escape" even if that had been the case was no threat to Tensing. The video clearly shows that his hand is NOT trapped in the car, nor is he being "dragged" by it. Rhea and I have BOTH shown pretty strong evidence that the car was not in motion at the time Tensing drew his gun.

The shooting was not justified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If relevant information is publicly available, why not?

Well, because "thug" and "baby mama" are opinions not factual information and because some people seem to only use those terms for black people.

Since you have no problem with people posting publicly available relevant"information", you would not be upset if posters here posted their fact-based opinions of "racist" or "misogynist" of other posters here at will?

"Baby mama" is factual: It describes a woman who has children out of wedlock.

- - - Updated - - -

The reduction comes from the people automatically defending black criminals. Loren was merely describing this reduction.

Loren REDUCED a HUMAN BEING to the words "a black" - that is the point. Not who/what he believed he was addressing, but his actual choice of words including the words he left out (such as "person")

I know you understand what I am saying. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what is wrong with the sentence "Anything to defend a black." is a reflection on you, too.

I used "a black" in this case because that was the relevant bit of information: He is being defended because he is black. It's not racism.

 

[Rhea]

Wait, so NOW you're saying that the cop reaches in "to turn off the engine" (i.e. something abysmally stooopid) then "the moron" (not the one who reached into a car while holding a gun to a guy's head, but the guy who was in the car) stepped on the gas, THEN the cop realized he was in danger, THEN he draws his gun and THEN shoots?

Or, wait, no the gun was out all that time. You're trying to pretend that didn't happen. Why did he pull his stupid gun again? It wasn't related to the gas pedal because that hadn't happened yet.

So WHY DID HE DRAW HIS GUN?


No, he doesn't get to shoot it just because he already had it out when he did something (additionally) stupid. Your excuse that it was drawn as a response to danger is not shown in the video.

So try again. Name the (perceived) danger that was present at the time the gun was drawn.


(bearing in mind that you're not even right that the engine revved prior to the shot, but you story falls down in so many places, I needed to step through the ridiculous one mucky boot at a time)

You see the officer's hands earlier in the stop--no gun.

You're dodging. So when exactly does he draw his gun? While he's running backwards at 7mph and staying ahead of the car?

And it doesn't matter how stupid you were in putting yourself in harm's way, that has no bearing on self defense. What counts is where the threat is coming from--and in this case it's coming from the guy trying to escape.

So you're saying that he thought he was more likely to not get run over by shooting the driver than just getting his arm out of the car? So he shoots the driver and !!~PREDICTABLY~!! the dead guy presses on the accelerator making the cop's position worse. I.e. the cop made his own position WORSE by shooting.

What a tool. And a man is now dead because of that tool.
Indicting him was correct.