New blockade in Minneapolis

[Gospel]

Most police officers exercise restraint and prioritize de-escalation. The few who act impulsively or with undue aggression are the exception, not the rule. Addressing the actions of the minority in no way undermines the dedication and commitment of the majority. In fact it encourages the majority to speak up and take action against said corrupt minority within the force even if that corruption is in leadership. I observe many conflating the actions of a few with the majority, suggesting that addressing police misconduct is an indictment of all officers. Which is utter bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

Most police officers exercise restraint and prioritize de-escalation. The few who act impulsively or with undue aggression are the exception, not the rule. Addressing the actions of the minority in no way undermines the dedication and commitment of the majority. In fact it encourages the majority to speak up and take action against said corrupt minority within the force even if that corruption is in leadership. I observe many conflating the actions of a few with the majority, suggesting that addressing police misconduct is an indictment of all officers. Which is utter bullshit.

Police officers, like all of us, are human. And humans in a group tend to stick together.

I agree that the unduly aggressive and violent officers are a minority, but it does not appear that the majority of police officers are willing to deal with their miscreants. Perhaps their corrective action is going on slowly and quietly, but their public persona is much more defiant, defensive, and resistant to change. And that is bolstered by the inane kneejerk boosterism of the "law and order" crowd.

 

[Gospel]

I agree that the unduly aggressive and violent officers are a minority, but it does not appear that the majority of police officers are willing to deal with their miscreants.

Police unions, leadership, and certain vocal supporters are largely responsible for perpetuating this issue. While numerous cases exist of officers trying to hold their peers accountable for misconduct, these incidents often go underreported or are discouraged. This isn't because most officers are unwilling to act, but those who step forward face repercussions from leadership and unions. This creates an environment where many officers feel compelled to remain silent, giving an inaccurate perception of majority complicity.

On top of that, those of us genuinely supporting law enforcement, meaning we advocate for upholding the law even within its ranks for everyone's safety (civilians and law enforcement officials), are mischaracterized as being against the police.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only point you've made is that you have shown you don't understand the situation.

What is the world is having more people supposed to do to keep one of them from being stabbed??? You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

Every time with a project, something goes as not planned, always investigating how we could have approached it better. Usually no one made a mistake, but it is always best to reassess and see how things could have been approached and applied in an even better way.

And this is over minor stuff, nothing about failures or people getting hurt. Why are you against that?

 

[Gospel]

In other news

This guy


Is used to support that guy

 

[thebeave]

In other news

This guy
View attachment 44129

Is used to support that guy
View attachment 44131

Who is doing that? Its ridiculous. Those two incidents are not even close to the same situation.

 

[Gospel]

Those who argue that the police's challenging role and predominantly justified uses of force make it demoralizing for them to face accountability are inadvertently using justified incidents to defend instances of unjustified police force.

 

[bilby]

Most police officers exercise restraint and prioritize de-escalation. The few who act impulsively or with undue aggression are the exception, not the rule. Addressing the actions of the minority in no way undermines the dedication and commitment of the majority. In fact it encourages the majority to speak up and take action against said corrupt minority within the force even if that corruption is in leadership. I observe many conflating the actions of a few with the majority, suggesting that addressing police misconduct is an indictment of all officers. Which is utter bullshit.

Well, it would be, if police were independent of one another.

But they're not.

Police who stand by and do nothing while their colleagues commit misconduct are no less responsible than those who are doing the wrong thing; Stepping up to challenge law breaking is literally their job.

This "majority" of "good cops" are only actually good, and only actually a majority, if they routinely arrest and charge the "minority" who break the rules by using excessive force, or by covering up for those who do.

But we observe that they in fact do not do this. They all join in the cover ups, even if by only doing nothing. They don't speak out, and the handful that do are hounded out of the force - while the majority stand by and let that happen.

 

[Gospel]

They don't speak out, and the handful that do are hounded out of the force - while the majority stand by and let that happen.

So ahh, that means you agree with what I said? That the majority of officers are not corrupt they just don't say or do anything because they'd become the minority that gets...

hounded out of the force - while the majority stand by and let that happen.

I mean are you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me? I have news for ya, you'll need to try again because you aren't disagreeing with me.

 

[Derec]

A woman deserved to be killed by police officers for the sim

Sim? As in simulation?

of living in a neighborhood you think was bad and having once upon a time dated a guy who turned out to be not great.

More than "not great", he was a drug dealer. That said, nobody is saying BT "deserved to be killed", so that's a strawman.

But it was her fault she was murdered in her own bed and not no knock warrrants or out of date warrants that sent police to the wrong address.

It was not "murder".

If I remember correctly Tamir Rice’s crime was being tall for his age and playing with a toy with the orange tip missing.

TR case was a tragic series of bad decisions, by TR himself, by the dispatcher, by the responding officers. Not a murder, but horrible nevertheless.
TR was very tall and big for 12 - in fact he was of an adult size. That is not a crime, despite your continuing strawmanning, but it certainly affected how he was perceived by both the initial caller and the officers. If I remember correctly, his stature was 97th percentile, and his weight off the charts. He was same stature/weight as Z, who was in his 20s.

Not the fault of the police dispatcher who failed to convey that it was likely a toy or the police officers who assassinated a child within seconds of roaring up in their police car.

No, the officers share part of the blame. That does not make it "murder", much less "assassination". You are quick to defend Mohammed Noor for what you call a "split second decision", but are using hyperbolic language here to condemn the officers. Mind you, Damond was not armed, not even with a realistic looking replica gun like TR was.

Loren, you’ve got a real problem—two problems: You worship police and you think black people are all crimsons who provoke police brutality by…,existing.

Some black people are crimsons, but plenty of white people are crimson too.

And that provokes police brutality only if the police are Auburn fans.

To get serious again, what do the tragic cases of Breanna Taylor and Tamir Rice have to do with this case, where police defended themselves from an attack by a knife-wielding assailant? From all evidence, they showed exemplary restraint, using a taser first. They only used their firearms when the attacker advanced to ~4 m (or ~1.2 s at the speed he was going) from them.

 

[laughing dog]

To get serious again, what do the tragic cases of Breanna Taylor and Tamir Rice have to do with this case, where police defended themselves from an attack by a knife-wielding assailant? From all evidence, they showed exemplary restraint, using a taser first. They only used their firearms when the attacker advanced to ~4 m (or ~1.2 s at the speed he was going) from them.

The victim in this case attacked no one. That is your perception and that of the police. Perhaps it is correct but we will never know. So please stop conflating your conclusions with fact.

 

[bilby]

They don't speak out, and the handful that do are hounded out of the force - while the majority stand by and let that happen.

So ahh, that means you agree with what I said? That the majority of officers are not corrupt they just don't say or do anything because they'd become the minority that gets...

hounded out of the force - while the majority stand by and let that happen.

I mean are you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me? I have news for ya, you'll need to try again because you aren't disagreeing with me.

No, I am saying that keeping quiet, to avoid reprisals, is corruption.

the majority of officers are not corrupt they just don't say or do anything

...is incoherent. It translates to: The majority of officers are not corrupt, they're just corrupt.

 

[Toni]

A woman deserved to be killed by police officers for the sim

Sim? As in simulation?

of living in a neighborhood you think was bad and having once upon a time dated a guy who turned out to be not great.

More than "not great", he was a drug dealer. That said, nobody is saying BT "deserved to be killed", so that's a strawman.

But it was her fault she was murdered in her own bed and not no knock warrrants or out of date warrants that sent police to the wrong address.

It was not "murder".

If I remember correctly Tamir Rice’s crime was being tall for his age and playing with a toy with the orange tip missing.

TR case was a tragic series of bad decisions, by TR himself, by the dispatcher, by the responding officers. Not a murder, but horrible nevertheless.
TR was very tall and big for 12 - in fact he was of an adult size. That is not a crime, despite your continuing strawmanning, but it certainly affected how he was perceived by both the initial caller and the officers. If I remember correctly, his stature was 97th percentile, and his weight off the charts. He was same stature/weight as Z, who was in his 20s.

Not the fault of the police dispatcher who failed to convey that it was likely a toy or the police officers who assassinated a child within seconds of roaring up in their police car.

No, the officers share part of the blame. That does not make it "murder", much less "assassination". You are quick to defend Mohammed Noor for what you call a "split second decision", but are using hyperbolic language here to condemn the officers. Mind you, Damond was not armed, not even with a realistic looking replica gun like TR was.

Loren, you’ve got a real problem—two problems: You worship police and you think black people are all crimsons who provoke police brutality by…,existing.

Some black people are crimsons, but plenty of white people are crimson too.

And that provokes police brutality only if the police are Auburn fans.

To get serious again, what do the tragic cases of Breanna Taylor and Tamir Rice have to do with this case, where police defended themselves from an attack by a knife-wielding assailant? From all evidence, they showed exemplary restraint, using a taser first. They only used their firearms when the attacker advanced to ~4 m (or ~1.2 s at the speed he was going) from them.

Tamir Rice was 12 years old and perhaps developmentally delayed. Even if he were not delayed, a 12 year old does not think the same way an adult does. I watched the video of his shooting —and yes, it was 100% unjustified which means it was murder—and it was obvious that this was a child and a child who was being deferential to the adult police officers, who did not show even a modicum of professional or adult judgement when they sped up to this child and killed him. In under 4 seconds. Tamir Rice’s height and weight matter not at all. By your reasoning, I should be perceived as a 10 year old child —many a 10 year old has stood next to me, quietly measuring their height against mine and feeling happy to be almost my height. Hell, I was my full height at age 12! Big fucking deal. I was still 12 and thought like a child.

Police officers and indeed, anyone who carries or even owns a firearm have an absolute duty to ensure that they use their firearms appropriately, taking all care and caution and only fire at appropriately identified targets.

My opinion woukd be vastly different if there had been reports of a gun being fired—even if it were determined that Tamir Rice did not fire the shots and was only in possession of a toy. But there were no reports of shots fired and absolutely nothing to justify his murder.

Noor was appropriately charged for killing Justine Ruszczyk. He was responsible for her death, was charged and convicted with the charges being amended upon appeal to be in compliance with Minnesota statute. He at least had the excuse of being startled when he was called to a reported crime scene. That did not make him not responsible for his serious lack of judgment and the crime he committed.

The officers who killed Tamir Rice were not startled. They simple killed the child who willingly, shyly came towards them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

You gave a weasel answer:

New blockade in Minneapolis

It's a distance that can be closed very quickly. In ~1.2 s at the speed St. Brian was going. Immobile? Do you suggest they should have ran away from the knife-wielding maniac? Coward? What do you think they should have done that would not be cowardly for you? Not immediately opening fire and...

iidb.org

You need to explain why you believe my answer is a "weasel answer".

You gave an answer that can't really be pinned down.

"Backing off a bit". When someone's charging you with a knife the only way to "back off a bit" is to run.

Once again, you interject your facts not in evidence. In this case, no one was charging. Approaching someone need not be charging. Furthermore, backing off need not require running anywhere. It can mean side-stepping or jumping sideways while trying to calm/regain control the situation.

You persist in the standard conservative "law and order" error of "kill em all". The real tragedy is that there are so many people who are so fearful that this is all they think is the solution.

But it is clear you misrepresented my words. While I can understand the initial misunderstanding, there is no honest excuse for you to persist.

You're arguing meaningless hypotheticals--approaching need not be charging but we have his approach speed--and it's well above walking pace.

Side-stepping isn't going to do anything to stop someone approaching you with a knife, nor will it gain enough time to calm the situation.

I did not misrepresent your words, you gave vague words that I fit to the facts of the case as I assumed they were supposed to be relevant.

What specific action or actions should the cops have taken? If you say they were wrong you need to provide a better course of action. You have about 1 second.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check: She was hit by a stray round, not a shot aimed at her. She made the mistake of living with scum.

I didn't realize that "scum" was a clear legal term and that living with scum was grounds for death penalty. Blaming the innocent victim of poor police markmenship for her death is simply insane.

Ever hear the expression: "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"?

Your insistence that the current insanity of police perpetuating and instigating armed violence is alarming and not terribly rational. All that has given us is more mass shootings.

Mass shootings are caused by the media. The shooters prefer infamy over being nobodies, the media gives them the infamy.

Mass shootings are caused by mass shooters. The media may give some mass shooters motives, but the killers make their choice and act on it. It is insane to think otherwise.

Without the motive there would be almost no events.

 

[laughing dog]

Reality check: She was hit by a stray round, not a shot aimed at her. She made the mistake of living with scum.

I didn't realize that "scum" was a clear legal term and that living with scum was grounds for death penalty. Blaming the innocent victim of poor police markmenship for her death is simply insane.

Ever hear the expression: "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"?

You are equating bad shooting after barging in the wrong address with fleas? That is insane.

Without the motive there would be almost no events.

Without sex, people would not exist. So why not assign responsibility to sex?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are always some who say one side and some who say the other. The news are very prone to presenting controversy without regard for whether it's right.

What do you mean "whether it's right"?

Are you suggesting reporters should pre-judge issues and only report those that fit their own undoubtedly biased worldview? I think they should strive to be unbiased, and accurately report all sides of an issue their community is discussing.

I'm saying they should apply some basic fact-checking to what they report.

I think we have very different ideas about what might be controversial when it comes to police killing suspects especially when video evidence and witness statements indicate the dead guy was surrendering or posed no threat that would justify such extreme measures. People in the US are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Cops killing people we presume are innocent should be controversial unless we're all in agreement that it was wrong, and even then there's likely to be some controversy over whether the killing was a crime.

As I was saying, the reporting should fact-check. Many of the witnesses who said they saw him surrendering were not actually able to see what was happening, their testimony had to be false. Yet it's reported as if it's a valid side. Excusable at first before everything had been analyzed, but after the fact they should have reported that the testimony was discredited.

Yes, controversies drive sales for news outlets. Yes, there are some outlets that gin up controversies where none exist, or exaggerate them beyond recognition. That's the Fox News business model in a nutshell. But that is not every news outlet reporting on every issue.

That's almost all news, not just Faux.

If you are dismissing discussions of justified vs. unjustified shootings merely because some news outlet reports it like it's a controversy, then you have no idea what's going on.

I'm saying that just because they reported it doesn't mean there's a real controversy.

Please explain what in your opinion makes something a 'real' controversy.

Something were the dispute can actually stand up to scrutiny--a sane analysis of what can be established does not settle the matter one way or the other. A bunch of people beating a contrary position doesn't make a controversy.

This isn't a controversy:

Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."

I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.

Stopped for jaywalking, not shot for jaywalking. You're being very deceptive.

I said stopped for jaywalking. You must have misread my post. Please re-read it and retract your accusation.

But he wasn't shot for jaywalking. You said "Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson for jaywalking", implying that was the cause of him being shot.

The stop led to an argument, which led to some kind of physical contact, which led to Wilson trying to shoot Brown from inside his car, which led to Brown running away, which led to Wilson exiting his car and fatally shooting Brown from a distance while Brown's arms were out to the sides and some say up in the air.

Wilson's life was not in danger, and neither were the lives of anyone except Brown himself, hence the controversy over his death. Also, this took place in Ferguson, MO, a town funding it's police force through citations and tickets issued to mostly black citizens for very minor infractions like jaywalking or having a non functioning car in the driveway.

The way the police department in Ferguson operated was very much in keeping with the pattern of policing noted in the article Derec found.

Once again, deceptive.

1) "Some kind of physical contact"--sorry, we have Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun.

2) "Some say"--many of the "witnesses" for Brown could not actually have seen what they reported to see.

3) You're bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things.

1) We have as much evidence Brown was trying to shove the barrel of the gun away when Wilson first tried to kill him as we have that Brown was trying to take the gun. In fact, given that Wilson carried his weapon on his right hip and Brown couldn't have reached it from where he was standing unless and until Wilson pulled it out of his holster, we have slightly more evidence of the former than the latter.

There is no situation where it would be reasonable for Brown to have touched the gun. Someone's pointing a gun at you, you do anything with the gun and you should expect to be shot. The only reason to shove the barrel away was to fight Wilson.

2) Which ones? The only witness of record that I know of who could not have seen what they claimed to have seen was the woman who suffers from delusions who said Brown was attacking Wilson.

I haven't kept track. There were several who weren't in a position to see what they claimed to see.

3) Not irrelevant to the article under discussion, or to the subject of this thread.

Some folks here have terrible memories. They need to be reminded of the facts, which I am usually more than willing to do so we don't wind up seriously discussing someone's homemade bullshit or ridiculous strawman arguments.

No, you're trying to present a very slanted view of the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.

Stopped for jaywalking, not shot for jaywalking. You're being very deceptive.

No, you are literally making stuff up.

More importantly, if he hadn’t been stopped for jaywalking, the subsequent tragedy would have occurred.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow. Just all of it.

Reality has a lot of unpleasant things. Liberal fantasies can't make them go away.

You believe that people who are having a mental health crisis are committing ‘suicide by cop’ and that police officers are obliged to assassinate them.

Proclaiming "mental health crisis" doesn't magically make the problem go away. They're very prone to actually attacking if they don't get what they want. It's a situation with no good answer, refusing to accept the least bad answer tends to make the end result worse.

A woman deserved to be killed by police officers for the sim of living in a neighborhood you think was bad and having once upon a time dated a guy who turned out to be not great. I’m sure all your exes would give you stellar reviews. But it was her fault she was murdered in her own bed and not no knock warrrants or out of date warrants that sent police to the wrong address.

I'm not saying "deserved", but rather that when you associate with criminals you sometimes get hit by bullets meant for them.

If I remember correctly Tamir Rice’s crime was being tall for his age and playing with a toy with the orange tip missing. Not the fault of the police dispatcher who failed to convey that it was likely a toy or the police officers who assassinated a child within seconds of roaring up in their police car.

Tamir Rice drew a realistic weapon on a cop. In hindsight he was probably trying to ditch it but there's no way a cop can know that. And "might be a fake" doesn't cut it--weapons are treated as real until known to be fake. Once again, a situation with no good outcome.

Loren, you’ve got a real problem—two problems: You worship police and you think black people are all crimsons who provoke police brutality by…,existing.

I've got a problem: I'm willing to address unpleasant reality rather than pretend that there's always a good answer if the side with the power would just look hard enough. We don't have a pause button.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

Yeah, why don’t they?

You think that's remotely realistic? He's drawing from the drop--the most likely outcome is he's full of lead before he has a chance to get a shot off.

There are plenty of self defense classes offered to the public. A friend of mine used to teach one specifically for women. Mostly I’m sure it gave the women a sense of confidence which, in itself is a deterrent against certain kinds of situations. But it’s also practical. Most attackers don’t expect resistance, much less self defense.

Agreed, but totally irrelevant to the discussion.

No one, including me, is expecting police to refrain from firing at someone who has a gun and even appears to be using it or preparing to use it. Yeah, definitions get tricky here and I’m neither going to quibble here nor arm chair a situation where police officers shot a suspect who was firing a weapon or threatening to fire a weapon.

You just did: Tamir Rice.

But several officers VS a single person with a kitchen knife should never have resulted in a serious injury, much less a fatality. If they couldn’t talk him into dropping the knife then surely one or two of them could have knocked it out of his hand or knocked him down and kicked the knife away.

About as realistic as the video clip above.

How do you propose to talk him into dropping the knife? Remember the timeframe--he was shot at about 1.2 seconds out which means the cops decided to fire at approximately 2.2 seconds out. You need to alot at least a second for him to understand and change his mind. With very optimistic estimates you get to say 3 words and you're stabbed if they don't work.

Again, I would see it differently try if the person had a hostage or had injured or killed another person. As it is now, having a shiny object in your hands in front of a police officer might result in your death. Other countries manage to handle police duties without killing more than a thousand people every year.

There have been mistakes but you're not pointing to them.