• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,592
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It did where I come from.

Is that the same one horse town you usually like to regale us about?

But enough about policing language. Let's get back to policing the streets. What do you think about the Patrick Lyoya case?
It was indeed a small town in a fairly rural county in a midwestern state. No horses, tho.

I think it is extremely difficult to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when you are on top of him, and he's face down on the ground. The fact that the officer told him to not touch his taser (or whatever) is not really proof that Loyoya was actually going for the taser because unfortunately sometimes cops lie. Unfortunately, Grand Rapids MI has a well documented serious problem with racism and racism on the part of police.

I confess I have not read more about the shooting over the last week or so.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
If we can just stop the black community from supporting these people
If we could stop white people … problem solved.

I'm very serious about the hood culture and the people they admire (or strive to be tougher or crazier than). It's a real thing. This doesn't mean that outside influences are nonexistent for example; most thug life music artists get the majority of their money from the white population. But it is a very serious problem in our neighborhoods and seeing success stories of how the life of crime was used to get out of the hood you'd think people would actually give it a go.

Three years ago, Lamar Grace left Detroit for the suburb of Southfield. He got a good deal — a 3,000-square-foot colonial that once was worth $220,000. In foreclosure, he paid $109,000.

The neighbors were not pleased.


"They don't want to live next door to ghetto folks," he says.

That his neighbors are black, like Grace, is immaterial. Many in the black middle class moved out of Detroit and settled in the northern suburbs years ago; now, due to foreclosures, it is easy to buy or rent houses on the cheap here. The result has been a new, poorer wave of arrivals from the city, and growing tensions between established residents and the newcomers.

Yeah, it also doesn't help when some do manage to get out of the hood they bring the hood with them & in some cases, not by any fault of their own. For example, property values going down because too many black people move in & not because said, black people have done anything tangible to bring the value down other than being black.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,788
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
A bit surprising there hasn't been a thread about Patrick Lyoya yet. He is the latest #BLM hashtag.
I guess your narrative about "the left" defending any black person for any reason is false, then.
unless YOU want to bring it up (which you did) and talk about it (which you are)... That's fine. But I guess you need a new theory.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It did where I come from.

Is that the same one horse town you usually like to regale us about?

But enough about policing language. Let's get back to policing the streets. What do you think about the Patrick Lyoya case?
It was indeed a small town in a fairly rural county in a midwestern state. No horses, tho.

I think it is extremely difficult to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when you are on top of him, and he's face down on the ground. The fact that the officer told him to not touch his taser (or whatever) is not really proof that Loyoya was actually going for the taser because unfortunately sometimes cops lie. Unfortunately, Grand Rapids MI has a well documented serious problem with racism and racism on the part of police.

I confess I have not read more about the shooting over the last week or so.
Bad guy takes a weapon from a cop is always justification to shoot regardless of position. And we clearly see a fight for control of the taser.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It did where I come from.

Is that the same one horse town you usually like to regale us about?

But enough about policing language. Let's get back to policing the streets. What do you think about the Patrick Lyoya case?
It was indeed a small town in a fairly rural county in a midwestern state. No horses, tho.

I think it is extremely difficult to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when you are on top of him, and he's face down on the ground. The fact that the officer told him to not touch his taser (or whatever) is not really proof that Loyoya was actually going for the taser because unfortunately sometimes cops lie. Unfortunately, Grand Rapids MI has a well documented serious problem with racism and racism on the part of police.

I confess I have not read more about the shooting over the last week or so.
Bad guy takes a weapon from a cop is always justification to shoot regardless of position. And we clearly see a fight for control of the taser.
Literally every word of that is wrong, including "a" and "the".

There's no such thing as a "bad guy" outside poorly written fiction. A suspect is, in law, innocent until proven guilty in court; Killing innocent people is not something we should allow the authorities to do.

Cops shouldn't be allowed weapons of any kind unless they can maintain control of them.

No cop is ever justified in shooting anyone, unless that person has already used deadly force. Cops have a duty to protect life, and to risk their own lives in so doing. Cowards who are not prepared to risk their lives in order to ascertain with certainty that the person they killed was a lethal threat have no business wearing the uniform.

Being scared doesn't justify murder, no matter what badges you may have been officially issued.

Self defence requires that you are actually under attack. Not just worried that you might be soon.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
There's no such thing as a "bad guy" outside poorly written fiction.
Of course there are bad guys.
A suspect is, in law, innocent until proven guilty in court; Killing innocent people is not something we should allow the authorities to do.
The first sentence is only relevant for the courts. It's not relevant as to how to respond to a suspect who is a threat to an officer or others.
The second sentence, if you were to apply it, would mean that police could never use deadly force. That is obviously nonsense.

Cops shouldn't be allowed weapons of any kind unless they can maintain control of them.
Another nonsensical sentence. There is no way to guarantee that a perp who attacks a cop will not be able to overpower him or her and take their weapon. That has happened surprisingly frequently when police officers hesitate too long to shoot a bad guy. And yes, I used the term "bad guy" here.
Suspect kills deputy Neil Adams with his own gun in Houston mall

This just happened in my neck of the woods. I know this restaurant.

GBI identifies man shot, killed by off-duty Atlanta police officer at Buckhead restaurant
Luckily this case had a happy ending, unlike many instances of perps taking officers' guns.

No cop is ever justified in shooting anyone, unless that person has already used deadly force.
That is overly restrictive it definitely is not what US laws says. I suspect it is not what Australian law says either.
It's an idiosyncratic bilibian view of what "justified" means.

Cops have a duty to protect life, and to risk their own lives in so doing.
They do risk their own lives. They are not required to put their lives at an unduly high risk. There is a difference.

Cowards who are not prepared to risk their lives in order to ascertain with certainty that the person they killed was a lethal threat have no business wearing the uniform.
In an unfolding situation there is simply no time to ascertain anything with certainty. You have to assess the threat in real time.

Being scared doesn't justify murder, no matter what badges you may have been officially issued.
Being in a reasonable fear for one's life or of bodily harm as well as that of third parties does justify using deadly force, and is in no way "murder".

Self defence requires that you are actually under attack. Not just worried that you might be soon.
Schurr was under attack by your boy Lyoya.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I guess your narrative about "the left" defending any black person for any reason is false, then.
Except that several leftist posters on here have not disappointed and have defended Lyoya while attacking Schurr. Playball does not even think he should have been pulled over!
And it's not just this forum. It's also lefty media like NPR who write one-sided hagiographies like this one. He a good boy. Church every week. No mention of his revoked license, two warrants or all the criminal convictions, including for DUI and domestic violence.
So the left is doing what the left does. No surprises.

unless YOU want to bring it up (which you did) and talk about it (which you are)... That's fine. But I guess you need a new theory.
Just because I started the thread does not mean the left will not defend bad guys like St. Patrick of Lyoya simply because of the color of his skin.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I think it is extremely difficult to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when you are on top of him, and he's face down on the ground.
He was still fighting with the officer. This went off for minutes. I think the officer became fearful that the longer the fight went on, the more likely it is that Lyoya would be able to overcome him and arm himself. First with the taser, but then with a gun. Lyoya has already shown willingness to use violence to get out of being arrested.
That's why I think two man patrols could have prevented this. If Schurr had backup, he would not need to be as concerned about losing the physical fight as his fellow officer would be there to assist.

The fact that the officer told him to not touch his taser (or whatever) is not really proof that Loyoya was actually going for the taser because unfortunately sometimes cops lie.
He is on the video going for the taser though. Again I ask you, did you even watch the video?
Some stills:
GRAND-RAPIDS-POLICE-VIA-REUTERS.jpg

5P-GRPD-SHOOTING-VIDEO_PKG_00-2.jpg

Unfortunately, Grand Rapids MI has a well documented serious problem with racism and racism on the part of police.
Do they? Or is it the usual "disparate impact" nonsense?

I confess I have not read more about the shooting over the last week or so.
Maybe you should inform yourself better.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I guess your narrative about "the left" defending any black person for any reason is false, then.
Except that several leftist posters on here have not disappointed and have defended Lyoya while attacking Schurr. Playball does not even think he should have been pulled over!
And it's not just this forum. It's also lefty media like NPR who write one-sided hagiographies like this one. He a good boy. Church every week. No mention of his revoked license, two warrants or all the criminal convictions, including for DUI and domestic violence.
So the left is doing what the left does. No surprises.
Just like there were no surprises in the OP.
unless YOU want to bring it up (which you did) and talk about it (which you are)... That's fine. But I guess you need a new theory.
Just because I started the thread does not mean the left will not defend bad guys like St. Patrick of Lyoya simply because of the color of his skin.
True. Just like there are people who think they have to attack guys like this victim because of the color of their skin.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,592
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I think it is extremely difficult to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when you are on top of him, and he's face down on the ground.
He was still fighting with the officer. This went off for minutes. I think the officer became fearful that the longer the fight went on, the more likely it is that Lyoya would be able to overcome him and arm himself. First with the taser, but then with a gun. Lyoya has already shown willingness to use violence to get out of being arrested.
That's why I think two man patrols could have prevented this. If Schurr had backup, he would not need to be as concerned about losing the physical fight as his fellow officer would be there to assist.

The fact that the officer told him to not touch his taser (or whatever) is not really proof that Loyoya was actually going for the taser because unfortunately sometimes cops lie.
He is on the video going for the taser though. Again I ask you, did you even watch the video?
Some stills:
GRAND-RAPIDS-POLICE-VIA-REUTERS.jpg

5P-GRPD-SHOOTING-VIDEO_PKG_00-2.jpg

Unfortunately, Grand Rapids MI has a well documented serious problem with racism and racism on the part of police.
Do they? Or is it the usual "disparate impact" nonsense?

I confess I have not read more about the shooting over the last week or so.
Maybe you should inform yourself better.
Believe it or not, Derec, I have an extremely full life outside this forum and it gives me no pleasure to watch multiple videos of people being murdered. Call me crazy but it just not seem to give me the same kind of thrill it gives you. Im not watching another video of another police officer killing another person. The video I saw earlier looked to me as though he was grabbing fir a weapon he feared being used on him. You know: defending himself. I realize that for many people, ordinary citizens do not have a right to defend themselves from attacks by police even if the police mistakenly break into their home in the middle of the night and are assumed to be home invaders—which they actually are.


As for informing myself, maybe you should inform yourself about the well documented history of racism in Grand Rapids MI. Y’all southern white boys don’t got no monopoly on racism.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Believe it or not, Derec, I have an extremely full life outside this forum and it gives me no pleasure to watch multiple videos of people being murdered.
Then you should have no issue with the video, as Lyoya wasn't murdered.
But I get your point - you do not like to watch video where people get killed. Fair enough. But then please do not pontificate about whether it is murder or that you think that the officer lied about the perp going for his taser or any other details you do not know but could have easily found out simply by watching.

Call me crazy but it just not seem to give me the same kind of thrill it gives you.
No thrill. But I do like to be informed.

Im not watching another video of another police officer killing another person. The video I saw earlier looked to me as though he was grabbing fir a weapon he feared being used on him. You know: defending himself.
But he was in the process of being legally detained. He has no right to defend himself against that.
And if he wasn't "defending himself" as you call it he'd still be alive. In jail, where he belonged, but alive.
Moral of the story: do not fight with police, and don't "defend" yourself by going for the police officer's weapons.

I realize that for many people, ordinary citizens do not have a right to defend themselves from attacks by police even if the police mistakenly break into their home in the middle of the night and are assumed to be home invaders—which they actually are.
People are actually given a lot of leeway when police serve warrants in their homes based on the assumption that they might have mistaken police for a home invader. Especially at night. Breonna Taylor's boyfriend's charges were dropped. Andrew Coffee IV, as big a scumbag as he is, was nevertheless acquitted of the murder charge when he shot at police and police returned fire, killing his girlfriend.

This case wasn't anything like that. This was in the middle of the day. It wasn't in his house, but it was a traffic stop, because the car Lyoya was driving had plates belonging to another vehicle. He was also driving with a revoked license and had two warrants out for his arrest, one for domestic violence for allegedly beating up his baby mama (funny how feminists like you choose to ignore info like that).
So he decided to run, and when that failed, fight with the officer in order to avoid going to jail. How far would he go to avoid being arrested? We do not know, and the officer is not required to find out.

As for informing myself, maybe you should inform yourself about the well documented history of racism in Grand Rapids MI.
From what I have seen it's mostly disparate impact nonsense. I.e. blacks are more likely to be stopped. But even if there was significant racism in Grand Rapids police department (a big if, as I have seen no actual evidence of it), that is completely irrelevant to what happened here. If I drive with mismatched plates, I will be stopped too. If I have warrants for my arrest, I will be arrested. If I decide to fight with the officer and grab his taser, I will probably get shot too. Where is the racism here?
Y’all southern white boys don’t got no monopoly on racism.
I know that already. The biggest racist in the case is a Northern black boy from Brooklyn.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,592
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Believe it or not, Derec, I have an extremely full life outside this forum and it gives me no pleasure to watch multiple videos of people being murdered.
Then you should have no issue with the video, as Lyoya wasn't murdered.
But I get your point - you do not like to watch video where people get killed. Fair enough. But then please do not pontificate about whether it is murder or that you think that the officer lied about the perp going for his taser or any other details you do not know but could have easily found out simply by watching.

Call me crazy but it just not seem to give me the same kind of thrill it gives you.
No thrill. But I do like to be informed.

Im not watching another video of another police officer killing another person. The video I saw earlier looked to me as though he was grabbing fir a weapon he feared being used on him. You know: defending himself.
But he was in the process of being legally detained. He has no right to defend himself against that.
And if he wasn't "defending himself" as you call it he'd still be alive. In jail, where he belonged, but alive.
Moral of the story: do not fight with police, and don't "defend" yourself by going for the police officer's weapons.

I realize that for many people, ordinary citizens do not have a right to defend themselves from attacks by police even if the police mistakenly break into their home in the middle of the night and are assumed to be home invaders—which they actually are.
People are actually given a lot of leeway when police serve warrants in their homes based on the assumption that they might have mistaken police for a home invader. Especially at night. Breonna Taylor's boyfriend's charges were dropped. Andrew Coffee IV, as big a scumbag as he is, was nevertheless acquitted of the murder charge when he shot at police and police returned fire, killing his girlfriend.

This case wasn't anything like that. This was in the middle of the day. It wasn't in his house, but it was a traffic stop, because the car Lyoya was driving had plates belonging to another vehicle. He was also driving with a revoked license and had two warrants out for his arrest, one for domestic violence for allegedly beating up his baby mama (funny how feminists like you choose to ignore info like that).
So he decided to run, and when that failed, fight with the officer in order to avoid going to jail. How far would he go to avoid being arrested? We do not know, and the officer is not required to find out.

As for informing myself, maybe you should inform yourself about the well documented history of racism in Grand Rapids MI.
From what I have seen it's mostly disparate impact nonsense. I.e. blacks are more likely to be stopped. But even if there was significant racism in Grand Rapids police department (a big if, as I have seen no actual evidence of it), that is completely irrelevant to what happened here. If I drive with mismatched plates, I will be stopped too. If I have warrants for my arrest, I will be arrested. If I decide to fight with the officer and grab his taser, I will probably get shot too. Where is the racism here?
Y’all southern white boys don’t got no monopoly on racism.
I know that already. The biggest racist in the case is a Northern black boy from Brooklyn.
I watched one video. In that video, I could make a case that Lyoya was grabbing for the taser--and could easily have been a reflex to stop it from hurting him. I've seen too many videos. I've read way too many posts of people defending things like two cops roaring up on a child playing in the park and shooting him to death in under 5 seconds. I don't have the stomach for it. Some of the actions of police are bad enough. To read other people defending them....

Seriously, Derec, what possesses you to link to different cases of (it's always some black guy) people who are involved in some police shooting--either being shot by or shooting at police? That person had zero bearing on this case.

I mean, it's great that Breonna Taylor's boyfriends charges were eventually dropped--there was ZERO reason to charge him! And I'm certain he paid an extreme price for defending his girlfriend's home, even without the fact that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED by police breaking into her apartment in the middle of the night while she was sleeping.

FFS Derec, I read a lot. I also like to be informed. Beyond having my own prejudices confirmed over.

A member of my family works as a public defender in a very white region of a pretty darn white state. It might amaze you--or not--to know that many/most of his clients have family histories and criminal histories that are eerily similar to those of the Coffee family. Substance abuse does terrible things to people. It does make one wonder whether things would have gone differently for this entire family if the grandfather had not been arrested and jailed for a small amount of pot.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The second sentence, if you were to apply it, would mean that police could never use deadly force. That is obviously nonsense.
That's far from obvious. It certainly wasn't obvious to Robert Peel, who knew a thing or two about policing. Police in the UK to this day are not routinely able to use lethal force, because they aren't routinely issued with firearms.

The police should almost never use deadly force, and it should be a very rare last resort that attracts extraordinary scrutiny if it does occur.

Police should never casually kill the citizens they are duty bound to protect.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Another nonsensical sentence. There is no way to guarantee that a perp who attacks a cop will not be able to overpower him or her and take their weapon.
Of course there fucking is.

No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,366
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Schurr was under attack by your boy Lyoya.
Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The officer here "got froggy", and then someone died.
I think it was Lyoya who got "froggy" when he decided to run and fight.

Did Lyoya throw a punch at the officer?
Did Lyoya put the officer in a headlock?
Did Lyoya try to body slam the officer?
Did Lyoya try to trip the officer?
Did Lyoya try kicking the officer?
Did Lyoya us any offensive combat moves at all?

You must not know how to fight if you call that fighting.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The officer here "got froggy", and then someone died.
I think it was Lyoya who got "froggy" when he decided to run and fight.

Did Lyoya throw a punch at the officer?
Did Lyoya put the officer in a headlock?
Did Lyoya try to body slam the officer?
Did Lyoya try to trip the officer?
Did Lyoya try kicking the officer?
Did Lyoya us any offensive combat moves at all?

You must not know how to fight if you call that fighting.
Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

then you can understand the position of the police idolaters.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There's no such thing as a "bad guy" outside poorly written fiction. A suspect is, in law, innocent until proven guilty in court; Killing innocent people is not something we should allow the authorities to do.

"Bad guy" in the context of his behavior at the scene.

And you're living in a fantasy world if you think there's no occasion for the police to use lethal force.

Cops shouldn't be allowed weapons of any kind unless they can maintain control of them.

Another bit of fantasy world. They aren't superhuman, at contact range a disarm is always a possibility.

No cop is ever justified in shooting anyone, unless that person has already used deadly force. Cops have a duty to protect life, and to risk their own lives in so doing. Cowards who are not prepared to risk their lives in order to ascertain with certainty that the person they killed was a lethal threat have no business wearing the uniform.

And in your world there are no cops because nobody in their right mind would be a cop and you certainly don't want crazies being cops.

<Picks up rifle, shoots Bilby-cop. You can't stop me because you can't use deadly force first. I have plenty of time to aim.>

Being scared doesn't justify murder, no matter what badges you may have been officially issued.

Self defence requires that you are actually under attack. Not just worried that you might be soon.
Means, motive and opportunity:

Means: Use the taser to incapacitate the cop, take his gun and kill him.

Motive: That's the only scenario that will keep the cop from simply chasing him. He's already demonstrated a willingness to commit a felony to avoid arrest, it's reasonable to suppose he will use additional force as needed to avoid arrest.

Opportunity: He got his hands on the taser.

Just because he hasn't used deadly force yet doesn't mean it's not reasonable to think he might. Of course he's not seeking to kill the officer, just seeking to escape. However, the only way to effect escape is to incapacitate the officer.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Believe it or not, Derec, I have an extremely full life outside this forum and it gives me no pleasure to watch multiple videos of people being murdered. Call me crazy but it just not seem to give me the same kind of thrill it gives you. Im not watching another video of another police officer killing another person. The video I saw earlier looked to me as though he was grabbing fir a weapon he feared being used on him. You know: defending himself. I realize that for many people, ordinary citizens do not have a right to defend themselves from attacks by police even if the police mistakenly break into their home in the middle of the night and are assumed to be home invaders—which they actually are.


As for informing myself, maybe you should inform yourself about the well documented history of racism in Grand Rapids MI. Y’all southern white boys don’t got no monopoly on racism.
Yes, he was grabbing for a weapon being used on him. The problem is that the weapon was legally being used on him. He knew the situation, this isn't a case of being confused by someone breaking in in the dark. You do not have a right to defend yourself from arrest--the law is clear on this, you challenge an arrest in the courtroom, not on the street. The only time you could legally resist is if you reasonably believe it is not actually an arrest--either that it's kidnappers using police uniforms as a ruse, or that the officer actually plans to murder you.

And the "attack" by the police happened only after he kept resisting being arrested. The police are allowed to use necessary force to effect an arrest.

And you're engaging in a total red herring here about the past history of racism. There's absolutely no reason to think racism is relevant here.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Just because he hasn't used deadly force yet doesn't mean it's not reasonable to think he might.
WTAF??
Even in the case of a routine traffic stop, it applies that “Just because [the subject] hasn't used deadly force yet doesn't mean it's not reasonable to think he might. “

IOW, unlimited license to kill. And we SEE the result.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I watched one video. In that video, I could make a case that Lyoya was grabbing for the taser--and could easily have been a reflex to stop it from hurting him. I've seen too many videos. I've read way too many posts of people defending things like two cops roaring up on a child playing in the park and shooting him to death in under 5 seconds. I don't have the stomach for it. Some of the actions of police are bad enough. To read other people defending them....

There were repeated struggles over the taser. This isn't a case of something being misinterpreted.

You complain about discrimination, yet your position in this thread is about as discriminatory as the South in the 1800s.

I mean, it's great that Breonna Taylor's boyfriends charges were eventually dropped--there was ZERO reason to charge him! And I'm certain he paid an extreme price for defending his girlfriend's home, even without the fact that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED by police breaking into her apartment in the middle of the night while she was sleeping.

You take a shot at a police officer, if you survive you're going to be charged. It doesn't matter how badly the police fucked up to get to that point.

Fundamentally, this is a problem with no-knock warrants.

FFS Derec, I read a lot. I also like to be informed. Beyond having my own prejudices confirmed over.

You certainly aren't showing that in this case as you keep bringing up red herrings that have no bearing on the incident.

A member of my family works as a public defender in a very white region of a pretty darn white state. It might amaze you--or not--to know that many/most of his clients have family histories and criminal histories that are eerily similar to those of the Coffee family. Substance abuse does terrible things to people. It does make one wonder whether things would have gone differently for this entire family if the grandfather had not been arrested and jailed for a small amount of pot.
Raise kids as criminals, you get criminals.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Another nonsensical sentence. There is no way to guarantee that a perp who attacks a cop will not be able to overpower him or her and take their weapon.
Of course there fucking is.

No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
And if the officer isn't armed he can lose the physical fight and be killed.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Schurr was under attack by your boy Lyoya.
Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.

Yeah, the leftist kumbaya position where the police can simply back down and yet somehow do their job.

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.
Simply continuing to defend himself won't accomplish anything but rack up charges. It's not an end point. At some point he's either going to surrender or he's going to seriously harm the officer. The officer is under no obligation to bet his life on which of the two paths the guy is going to choose.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

then you can understand the position of the police idolaters.
And 2 + 2 = 3.

This moron had plenty of opportunity to quit his stupidity, he just couldn't accept that he was going to jail. This wasn't a failure to kiss ass or any other such nonsense.

While he took no offensive action he kept taking illegal defensive actions that would turn a very minor offense (having the plate on the wrong car) into a serious one. Defensive actions weren't going to change the outcome, at some point he would have to either give up or take offensive actions.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I watched one video. In that video, I could make a case that Lyoya was grabbing for the taser--and could easily have been a reflex to stop it from hurting him.
It would not be a  reflex exactly, but I do acknowledge the possibility of what you say. I do not think it matters to the legality of the shooting though. We have the perp engaged in a protracted fight with the officer and grabbing at his weapon, no matter Lyoya's reason for doing so.

I've seen too many videos. I've read way too many posts of people defending things like two cops roaring up on a child playing in the park and shooting him to death in under 5 seconds.
Nobody here, myself included, was defended this. I have said that this was a series of fuckups by everyone involved. But a fuckup is not necessarily murder. And it also has nothing to do with the Lyoya situation. Schurr did not start blasting within 5 seconds of encountering Lyoya. Instead, Lyoya fought with Schurr for over a minute before Schurr used lethal force.

I don't have the stomach for it. Some of the actions of police are bad enough. To read other people defending them....

Seriously, Derec, what possesses you to link to different cases of (it's always some black guy) people who are involved in some police shooting--either being shot by or shooting at police? That person had zero bearing on this case.
Uhm, you are the one who brought up people "defending themselves" during police raids on their homes. I brought up these examples in direct response to your statements, to show you that in these cases the shooters often get away with it. For the record, I definitely think Coffee IV should have been convicted. I do not buy his story that he did not know it was police (police had already taken his father into custody at that point) and he has excessive history of violent crime, including violence against police.
I mean, it's great that Breonna Taylor's boyfriends charges were eventually dropped--there was ZERO reason to charge him!
He did shoot a police officer in the leg. The only reason his charges were dropped were his race and the anti-police insurrections throughout 2020.

And I'm certain he paid an extreme price for defending his girlfriend's home, even without the fact that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED by police breaking into her apartment in the middle of the night while she was sleeping.
They were serving a warrant. Not exactly the same as a "break in". It sucks that she was killed, of course, but you can't blame police officers for returning fire once somebody start shooting at them.

A member of my family works as a public defender in a very white region of a pretty darn white state. It might amaze you--or not--to know that many/most of his clients have family histories and criminal histories that are eerily similar to those of the Coffee family.
That does not surprise me at all. The key difference is that white criminals similar to the Coffees receive far less sympathy and support in our culture.

Substance abuse does terrible things to people. It does make one wonder whether things would have gone differently for this entire family if the grandfather had not been arrested and jailed for a small amount of pot.
I doubt it. They seem like genuinely bad human beings, all three of them.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That's far from obvious. It certainly wasn't obvious to Robert Peel, who knew a thing or two about policing.
Robert Peel, the 19th century British politician? How is he remotely relevant to this discussion?
Police in the UK to this day are not routinely able to use lethal force, because they aren't routinely issued with firearms.
And firearms are very strictly regulated in the UK and not nearly as common as in the US.
The police should almost never use deadly force, and it should be a very rare last resort that attracts extraordinary scrutiny if it does occur.
Compared to number of interactions, deadly force use by police is rare. And every shooting is investigated, as it should be.
But in a country with a constitutional (actually spelled out in the text, no "emanations from the penumbrae") right to bear arms, you would expect more deadly police shootings than in a country where firearms are very strictly regulated and few civilians have them.

Police should never casually kill the citizens they are duty bound to protect.
Who says they should "casually" kill people? Nobody. That's a straw man.
On the other hand, it is silly to expect police to not shoot perps who pose a danger to the officers or others.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,592
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I watched one video. In that video, I could make a case that Lyoya was grabbing for the taser--and could easily have been a reflex to stop it from hurting him.
It would not be a  reflex exactly, but I do acknowledge the possibility of what you say. I do not think it matters to the legality of the shooting though. We have the perp engaged in a protracted fight with the officer and grabbing at his weapon, no matter Lyoya's reason for doing so.

I've seen too many videos. I've read way too many posts of people defending things like two cops roaring up on a child playing in the park and shooting him to death in under 5 seconds.
Nobody here, myself included, was defended this. I have said that this was a series of fuckups by everyone involved. But a fuckup is not necessarily murder. And it also has nothing to do with the Lyoya situation. Schurr did not start blasting within 5 seconds of encountering Lyoya. Instead, Lyoya fought with Schurr for over a minute before Schurr used lethal force.

I don't have the stomach for it. Some of the actions of police are bad enough. To read other people defending them....

Seriously, Derec, what possesses you to link to different cases of (it's always some black guy) people who are involved in some police shooting--either being shot by or shooting at police? That person had zero bearing on this case.
Uhm, you are the one who brought up people "defending themselves" during police raids on their homes. I brought up these examples in direct response to your statements, to show you that in these cases the shooters often get away with it. For the record, I definitely think Coffee IV should have been convicted. I do not buy his story that he did not know it was police (police had already taken his father into custody at that point) and he has excessive history of violent crime, including violence against police.
I mean, it's great that Breonna Taylor's boyfriends charges were eventually dropped--there was ZERO reason to charge him!
He did shoot a police officer in the leg. The only reason his charges were dropped were his race and the anti-police insurrections throughout 2020.

And I'm certain he paid an extreme price for defending his girlfriend's home, even without the fact that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED by police breaking into her apartment in the middle of the night while she was sleeping.
They were serving a warrant. Not exactly the same as a "break in". It sucks that she was killed, of course, but you can't blame police officers for returning fire once somebody start shooting at them.

A member of my family works as a public defender in a very white region of a pretty darn white state. It might amaze you--or not--to know that many/most of his clients have family histories and criminal histories that are eerily similar to those of the Coffee family.
That does not surprise me at all. The key difference is that white criminals similar to the Coffees receive far less sympathy and support in our culture.

Substance abuse does terrible things to people. It does make one wonder whether things would have gone differently for this entire family if the grandfather had not been arrested and jailed for a small amount of pot.
I doubt it. They seem like genuinely bad human beings, all three of them.
Derec, I’m on the fly right now and I’m not sure that I could locate that thread about Tamir Rice if I had hours to spend on it, but indeed, there was at least one poster who absolutely DID defend the police. I’m not dragging up the name(s). It’s unfair because I can’t post a link. I thought I remembered you as among those who who did defend the police. I’m sorry if I was wrong.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

then you can understand the position of the police idolaters.
And 2 + 2 = 3.
Your response indicates that is true in your world.
This moron had plenty of opportunity to quit his stupidity, he just couldn't accept that he was going to jail. This wasn't a failure to kiss ass or any other such nonsense.

While he took no offensive action he kept taking illegal defensive actions that would turn a very minor offense (having the plate on the wrong car) into a serious one. Defensive actions weren't going to change the outcome, at some point he would have to either give up or take offensive actions.
Thank you for intentionally parodying a police idolator to help me make my point.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
<Picks up rifle, shoots Bilby-cop. You can't stop me because you can't use deadly force first. I have plenty of time to aim.>
Being armed to the teeth does nothing to protect anyone, cop or otherwise, who doesn't shoot first.

If you want to protect against possible threats, rather than actual and demonstrable ones, your only option is to shoot on sight anyone and everyone who can possibly threaten you. Which is basically everybody.

This isn't what cops do (thankfully), because they recognise that their defence isn't their guns; It's their organisation.

You can always shoot a cop. But you can't get away with doing it, because a dead cop isn't the end of your interaction with the authorities, it's just the beginning - and you will lose.

That's why cops in the UK are highly effective at preventing crime while not being routinely armed. It's been demonstrated to work, so your hypothesis that it cannot is just wilful ignorance.

You can shoot, or stab, or taze, a cop in London, and he cannot respond with bullets, because be doesn't have a gun. This isn't a problem for the Met Police though - because they have access to vast resources in backup.

Assault a cop in London, and you will never be able to stop running. Kill one, and you will be hunted down at almost any expense and inconvenience, by a large and well equipped organisation.

This is also why it's needless to kill a fleeing suspect. Running away just delays the inevitable, it's really not likely to be a successful strategy for a suspect.

And it's better for everyone - suspects, cops, and bystanders - to let suspects flee, and then go round them up later in a controlled manner.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The only time you could legally resist is if you reasonably believe it is not actually an arrest--either that it's kidnappers using police uniforms as a ruse, or that the officer actually plans to murder you.
The latter isn't a particularly unreasonable belief for black men in the USA.

And resisting arrest isn't a capital crime.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Of course there fucking is.
No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it is just not realistic for US cops to be unarmed.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Another nonsensical sentence. There is no way to guarantee that a perp who attacks a cop will not be able to overpower him or her and take their weapon.
Of course there fucking is.

No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
And if the officer isn't armed he can lose the physical fight and be killed.
Yes. It's not a job for cowards.

Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.

If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Of course there fucking is.
No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it is just not realistic for US cops to be unarmed.
Why not?

It works elsewhere. There's nothing unrealistic about it; It just fails to subscribe to a national myth. You could, and should, do better.

But you don't want to.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Because many bad guys have guns themselves. Duh!

It works elsewhere.
It works where guns are heavily regulated and gun crime is very uncommon. Neither applies to US.

There's nothing unrealistic about it; It just fails to subscribe to a national myth. You could, and should, do better.
There is nothing mythical here. Just the reality of guns being plentiful and gun crime relatively common.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.
It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.
We do not deliberately expose firefighters to undue risk just to give fire a fighting chance.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.
Why should the police officer have to back away and let the bad guy get away?

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.
Potato - potahto. Upshot is, do not fight with police. Do not go for their weapons.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
Nobody asks for ass-kissing, not from white or black suspects.

2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,
Nanosecond? This went on for minutes.
And again, there is zero evidence race played any role at all.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The latter isn't a particularly unreasonable belief for black men in the USA.
It definitely is unreasonable. Chances of getting shot by police are low enough (regardless of race) and become very low when looking at unjustified police killings. And the chance that a police officer might want to outright murder you is infinitesimal.
Even given that, by population, black people are somewhat more likely to be killed by police, an e.g. 2x increase of a very small chance is still a very small chance.

And resisting arrest isn't a capital crime.
Category error. "Capital crime" refers to judicial punishments. This is about use of lethal force against a threat in the field. A capital crime is not required for lethal force to be justified. Conversely, even if a capital crime is committed, lethal force may not be justified. If you murder somebody with malice aforethought and then peacefully surrender to police, they have no grounds for using lethal force, even if your crime is death penalty eligible.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Update in the St. Patrick of Lyoya case: He was not only drunk, but super drunk (BAC 0.29%) at 8:30 in the morning.

Patrick Lyoya's autopsy report released by Kent County, blood-alcohol levels over limit

Detroit Free Press said:
Kent County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Cohle performed the autopsy last month. He previously said his office requested toxicology and tissue test results be expedited.
The autopsy report shows Lyoya’s blood ethanol at 290 mg/dL. That is a blood alcohol concentration of .29, experts said.
In Michigan, a person with blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher is legally considered too intoxicated to drive. Blood-alcohol levels at or above .17 while driving can be considered "super drunk" and bring heightened penalties.
Dr. Ernest Chiodo, a physician, toxicologist and former medical director of the city of Detroit, described the levels in the report as “highly, highly intoxicated.” Most people would be falling down drunk, he said.
Oakland County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic said it would probably take a minimum of 15 drinks to reach the level of .29.

He had previous DUIs too. He was a danger to everyone on the road driving like this. Playball (and others), do you still think Schurr was wrong for even pulling over this rolling menace to society?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Of course there fucking is.
No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.
No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it is just not realistic for US cops to be unarmed.
Why not?

It works elsewhere. There's nothing unrealistic about it; It just fails to subscribe to a national myth. You could, and should, do better.

But you don't want to.
Derec can bloviate you to death on this and most other subjects.
Unarmed (with guns) police successfully mitigate crime in other countries, but other countries don’t feature decades of government control by the NRA, resulting in the whole country being awash in 1.2 firearms per person.
Derec can thank his conservatard peers for this situation. It’s a shame that he sees the “solution” as killing people because they probably pose a lethal threat, rather than getting rid of (or effectively regulating) guns.
But that’s how it’s going to be, because we (esp whites) would rather have cowboy justice administered at will by macho morons, than try to deal with our societal ills. Kinda like how an unattractive appearance doesn’t preclude unpaid sex. Something else does. But why worry about that, when you can just purchase it?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Update in the St. Patrick of Lyoya case: He was not only drunk, but super drunk (BAC 0.29%) at 8:30 in the morning.

Patrick Lyoya's autopsy report released by Kent County, blood-alcohol levels over limit

Detroit Free Press said:
Kent County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Cohle performed the autopsy last month. He previously said his office requested toxicology and tissue test results be expedited.
The autopsy report shows Lyoya’s blood ethanol at 290 mg/dL. That is a blood alcohol concentration of .29, experts said.
In Michigan, a person with blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher is legally considered too intoxicated to drive. Blood-alcohol levels at or above .17 while driving can be considered "super drunk" and bring heightened penalties.
Dr. Ernest Chiodo, a physician, toxicologist and former medical director of the city of Detroit, described the levels in the report as “highly, highly intoxicated.” Most people would be falling down drunk, he said.
Oakland County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic said it would probably take a minimum of 15 drinks to reach the level of .29.

He had previous DUIs too. He was a danger to everyone on the road driving like this.
Oh well, I guess that excuses shooting him in the back of the head.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
Nobody asks for ass-kissing, not from white or black suspects.
Literal interpretations of figurative language is a pretty obtuse rebuttal.
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,
Nanosecond? This went on for minutes.
And again, there is zero evidence race played any role at all.
My observations were clearly about police idolators, not the incident.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.
It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.
One would think that shooting someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD would not indicate the shooter was in a situation of "undue risk".
We do not deliberately expose firefighters to undue risk just to give fire a fighting chance.
Once you consider fire is not a human being, which makes your comparison rather silly,
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Once you consider fire is not a human being, which makes your comparison rather silly,
I wonder if Derec could name a single black person who was killed by a cop, and it was the cop's fault.
EVER.
I doubt it.
As far as I can tell, he just wishes they'd kill more of 'em.
And no, Derec, I am not "attacking you", just tellin' like it is as far as how it appears to me.
You can go right ahead and state that I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,592
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.
Why should the police officer have to back away and let the bad guy get away?

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.
Potato - potahto. Upshot is, do not fight with police. Do not go for their weapons.
About 20 years or so ago, my inlaws, who lived in a very nice suburb of a major city were the victims of an armed in home invasion. One of the robbers forced my FIL to drive to withdraw money from a bank and the other held my MIL captive, a knife at her throat. Long story but my father in law was able to alert the police who set up SWAT teams, who in turn, rescued my MIL. Both of the robbers were taken into custody. No shots were fired. No one was hurt, despite both robbers being armed and holding two elderly people, one of whom was in a walker, captive for several hours. Thank heavens.

I'm writing this to point out that indeed, there are alternatives to shooting people in the back of the head during traffic stops. Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

You can even grab your trusty AR15, drive a State or two away, brandish your weapon until someone reacts, then kill a couple of people, keep strolling around intimidating people and STILL not get shot, or even roughed up whatsoever. But ya gotta be fairly white to do that. If you abide by THAT rule the sky is the limit. Not because cops are so expert at realizing good outcomes.
 
Top Bottom