Off duty, black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police

[RavenSky]

I think that when a police officer kills an unarmed civilian, he/she should have to prove the actions were appropriate in order to be returned to street duty.

^^^ agree

 

[Terrell]

I think that when a police officer kills an unarmed civilian, he/she should have to prove the actions were appropriate in order to be returned to street duty.

That is crazy talk!

Two things at play here.

1. Was the shooting necessary to immediately protect the life of the officer or a civilian.
2. Should actions that led up to the shooting have been taken differently in order to prevent the necessity of the shooting.

I think sometimes some people are so wound up on issue 1 they ignore issue 2. If an officer is creating a situation where a shooting become required, they really shouldn't be on the street.

Agree with these. I'd like to see criminal & civil liability attach as well, if they fail to meet Jimmy Higgins' standard on shootings in general, not just police shootings. Perhaps people would consider their actions leading up to said confrontation, and shooting, and if they don't there's criminal consequences.

 

[EPresence2]

Agreed... from us armchair quarterbacks

Nice passive-aggressive response.

Typically, if someone is killed by the police, it should be a big deal. It is odd that it isn't to so many people.

Passive-aggressive response? There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal? By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nice passive-aggressive response.

Typically, if someone is killed by the police, it should be a big deal. It is odd that it isn't to so many people.

Passive-aggressive response?

I agree fully, but I think you are completely wrong. That is passive-aggressive.

There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal?

The post was pretty clear, a police shooting, any police shooting.

By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

It doesn't have to be about instigating an innocent person. They can instigate a guilty person too. Being killed by the Police isn't exactly something to handwave merely because someone shoplifted. We have a specifically written Amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Davka]

Instigation is a crucial part of this issue. If you grew up in a neighborhood where the cops treated you as a "suspect" from the age of 8, and randomly stop-and-frisked you from the age of 12 (often forcing you spread-eagled against a wall), it wouldn't take much to bring the seething resentment to the surface.

 

[EPresence2]

Passive-aggressive response?

I agree fully, but I think you are completely wrong. That is passive-aggressive.

There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal?

The post was pretty clear, a police shooting, any police shooting.

By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

It doesn't have to be about instigating an innocent person. They can instigate a guilty person too. Being killed by the Police isn't exactly something to handwave merely because someone shoplifted. We have a specifically written Amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Completely wrong about what? And where is the hand-waving or lack of sufficient concern?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree fully, but I think you are completely wrong. That is passive-aggressive.

There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal?

The post was pretty clear, a police shooting, any police shooting.

By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

It doesn't have to be about instigating an innocent person. They can instigate a guilty person too. Being killed by the Police isn't exactly something to handwave merely because someone shoplifted. We have a specifically written Amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Completely wrong about what? And where is the hand-waving or lack of sufficient concern?

Gosh you are getting boring real quick.

 

[EPresence2]

I agree fully, but I think you are completely wrong. That is passive-aggressive.

There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal?

The post was pretty clear, a police shooting, any police shooting.

By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

It doesn't have to be about instigating an innocent person. They can instigate a guilty person too. Being killed by the Police isn't exactly something to handwave merely because someone shoplifted. We have a specifically written Amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Completely wrong about what? And where is the hand-waving or lack of sufficient concern?

Gosh you are getting boring real quick.

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there. Honestly, I don't much care if you are bored or not with my comments. But that is irrelevant to the discussion of facts, logical connections, and ideas on a discussion forum. I try not to waste peoples time and patience with snarky comments - which seem all too common on this board.

 

[RavenSky]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there. Honestly, I don't much care if you are bored or not with my comments. But that is irrelevant to the discussion of facts, logical connections, and ideas on a discussion forum. I try not to waste peoples time and patience with snarky comments - which seem all too common on this board.

 

[laughing dog]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

 

[EPresence2]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

Jumping to unfounded conclusions seems to be your strong suit. Keep up the good work dude.

 

[EPresence2]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there. Honestly, I don't much care if you are bored or not with my comments. But that is irrelevant to the discussion of facts, logical connections, and ideas on a discussion forum. I try not to waste peoples time and patience with snarky comments - which seem all too common on this board.

View attachment 1915

Pray tell where have I been using snarky comments that someone else didn't start? I don't start out the blocks with them.

 

[laughing dog]

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

Jumping to unfounded conclusions seems to be your strong suit. Keep up the good work dude.

That is a reasonable extension of your whinge about "arm-chair quarterbacking". Obviously, posting without thinking and making stupid snarky comments are your strong suits.

 

[EPresence2]

Jumping to unfounded conclusions seems to be your strong suit. Keep up the good work dude.

That is a reasonable extension of your whinge about "arm-chair quarterbacking". Obviously, posting without thinking and making stupid snarky comments are your strong suits.

I'm sorry I've made you feel so defensive. But what you said really doesn't follow from what I said. You were jumping to conclusions and yes I will own some of the snark on this board I would love talking to Gene Wilder.

Here there be Snarks!:devil-smiley-029:

 

[laughing dog]

That is a reasonable extension of your whinge about "arm-chair quarterbacking". Obviously, posting without thinking and making stupid snarky comments are your strong suits.

I'm sorry I've made you feel so defensive. But what you said really doesn't follow from what I said.

You are wrong because it does. I understand that you are unable to make the connection, but that does not make your retort valid.

 

[RavenSky]

View attachment 1915

Pray tell where have I been using snarky comments that someone else didn't start? I don't start out the blocks with them.

 

[EPresence2]

I'm sorry I've made you feel so defensive. But what you said really doesn't follow from what I said.

You are wrong because it does. I understand that you are unable to make the connection, but that does not make your retort valid.

*Snark begins* Your assumptions are really juvenile Laughing Dog *Snark ends* - where did I say it was a bad thing? You assumed I was claiming it's a bad thing instead of a cautionary state.

 

[EPresence2]

Pray tell where have I been using snarky comments that someone else didn't start? I don't start out the blocks with them.

View attachment 1916

Ha ha!!! How did you find my picture? Maybe Jimmy finds my comments and reaction to them less boring now.

Good night you all!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree fully, but I think you are completely wrong. That is passive-aggressive.

There is a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking going on around here (e.g., arguments from incredulity). And how should I be making what a big deal?

The post was pretty clear, a police shooting, any police shooting.

By someone, I assume you mean an innocent victim of police unfair profiling who was instigated to resist... How true is that in all the cases we've been talking about?

It doesn't have to be about instigating an innocent person. They can instigate a guilty person too. Being killed by the Police isn't exactly something to handwave merely because someone shoplifted. We have a specifically written Amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Completely wrong about what? And where is the hand-waving or lack of sufficient concern?

Gosh you are getting boring real quick.

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

You don't say. Most people weren't there. And when a shooting involves the Police, it is in their best interest to make their side of the story seem like the right side. Hence why actual investigations are absolutely necessary to get to the truth and exhonerate or condemn (or something in between) the officer. Faith in the Police and the State overseeing the police isn't at its highest point right now.

I try not to waste peoples time and patience with snarky comments - which seem all too common on this board.

Actually, most of your posts have lacked content.

 

[EPresence2]

You don't say. Most people weren't there. And when a shooting involves the Police, it is in their best interest to make their side of the story seem like the right side.

Of course it is, but we can't assume all police departments are lying in every protest-inciting case either. In some cases it may be in the best interest of a community/interest group to hate the police and make their side seem like the right one.

Hence why actual investigations are absolutely necessary to get to the truth and exhonerate or condemn (or something in between) the officer.

Agreed, without caveats that could be taken in the most negative way.

Faith in the Police and the State overseeing the police isn't at its highest point right now.

And how much of that is based on a typical rush to judgement that flows from cultural predispositions, initial misinformation and outright distortion of the facts in a case? These sort of things have legs on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and it really inflames the issues of today. That (in a nutshell) is what I've apparently been wasting my time talking about here.