Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The police murdering someone isn't a game and prison isn't a prize.
-
Features
Police shooting in Atlanta aka "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-through"
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
The police murdering someone isn't a game and prison isn't a prize.
laughing dog
Contributor
I think Trausti was referring to those who respond to his posts.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I would not be surprised if living in somewhere like the USA subtly inures many people to it, perhaps despite their better judgements. If it is, or is perceived as, anything like a norm, partly because of its common occurrence, large numbers of people can, sadly, to at least some extent, stop thinking about it in as much of a questioning or even shocked way as than they would if it was highly unusual. 'Death by shooting cultural fatigue' or something like that maybe. Possibly quite a mild but chronic version in many cases.
Smearing the victim's name is an attempt to dehumanize them, as if the police were simply putting down a rabid animal. Some of these posters habitually resort to this revolting practice - he was convicted of shoplifting, he sold drugs, he was a drug addict, often with little evidence to support such claims. They will go so far as to chastise the victims for fathering children out of wedlock, or for being sexually promiscuous. What they don't do is bring up the misdeeds of the police officers who perpetrated these homicides, because that does not fit the story. It is ironic that some of these people are so quick to point the finger at others, when they have as much as admitted that they habitually engage in criminal behavior like soliciting prostitutes themselves.
Its ok because the victim was black. And because the victim had dared to resist arrest, and tried to run away. They will make up improbable excuses for justifying the killing, like speculating that the victim could have tried to hijack a car with the taser. Or that the victim could have turned around, overpowered the officers, stolen their firearms and killed them. When the video clearly shows a drunk who was trying to run away, perhaps because he was scared for his life.
It makes my stomach turn to read posts like that. But you have to speak up when you see blatant exhibitions of prejudice, and challenge them.
And cops have never missed a firearm in a frisk?
What in the world are you smoking? The words you quote are there except with my numbers, not yours.
However, I think I understand what's going on--if your numbers are actually meters it makes sense. I'm not sure what you were looking at but I think someone made a unit error.
zorq
Veteran Member
Are you saying that you think police assume suspects are always fully armed even after they personally frisk them? Is that a rational position for police officers? Is that notion a rational conjecture for you to make in this discussion?
Your link doesn't show a long rap sheet. However, the idea that he was a criminal who would be going to jail is what I was expecting.
You're ignoring the reason he was shot--taking a shot at a cop.
Standard police training is to respond with one level of force above what is being used against them.
Furthermore, given the timing it looks to me like he decided to fire based on "gun being pointed at me"--how can he be certain the guy didn't have a gun?
Look upthread. This is a guy who got 7 years over a domestic violence incident involving at least one child. His family is probably better off without him.
repoman
Contributor
Even if not justified in hindsight, adrenaline taking over for a pursuing cop is a risk in this situation. If he can't stay cool enough under pressure, this may not be the right line of work for him.
In cases like this I see a lot of these blacks saying "but why did he have to?" and repeat it like five times in a row. Does this work on people this idiotic repetition on their people?
Jokodo
Veteran Member
The cop was in no imminent danger from a suspect who was now running away after having pointed a non lethal weapon at him. You're almost making it sound as if the cop were out for retaliation - and thereby making a perfectly good case that her should be charged for manslaughter and never be working in the police force again.
ruby sparks
Contributor
C'mon. What sort of standard is 'could not be certain he didn't have', before killing someone? Shouldn't it at least be reasonable cause to think he had, or even might have had?
In this case, it's obvious enough. It's actually somewhat obvious from cctv footage from quite a long way off, because the taser was bright yellow. That they had also frisked him, (presumably reasonably satisfying themselves that he did not have a gun, as is the point of them being trained to frisk properly in such situations), saw him take the taser literally seconds before, were shouting 'he's got the taser' and were not all that far behind him and so would have seen a bright yellow taser in his hand.
Why on earth are you again, as pretty much always even if not entirely, bending over so far to try to excuse the police at the slightest opportunity?
And you say you want progress and better policing standards and methods. Hm. Do you, actually? And then you complain that activists in general are too radical in their demands and complaints. It's partly because of things people like you say that many people, and not just black people, are angry, Loren. You're an apologist, an enabler, of bad policing methods and standards. This policeman over-reacted and made a mistake and killed a man unnecessarily. There should at least be some consequences.
And don't just lay the blame solely at training standards or rules of engagement while simultaneously only citing them as a defence. Even if that's all it was (which it may not be), it still wouldn't make it good or right, would it?
Last edited:
lpetrich
Contributor
Atlanta police officer who shot Rayshard Brooks had past reprimand for use of force - Reuters
Ex-officer Derek Chauvin the subject of at least 17 complaints
Part of the problem is continued protection of cops with a history of misbehavior.
Like this:
Ex-officer Derek Chauvin the subject of at least 17 complaints
Part of the problem is continued protection of cops with a history of misbehavior.
ruby sparks
Contributor
One written warning in 7 years (in Rolfe’s case) is arguably not enough to justify taking him off the force, to be fair.
marc
Veteran Member
When they are a minority, yea, always assume they are armed even when nearly naked or when already searched, so you have to shoot. Now a white guy with body armor and multiple visible guns, you don't have to worry about, because they are not a criminal.
What I find interesting is often the type of people who support the police shootings also support removing gun control laws, wanting everyone to have guns. So they are fine with cops shooting people because they might have a gun, and with everyone having guns to make that assumption correct.
Is this where we get to say, “see, the person has a “prior” so the other person was right to act on that info.
So we get to say Rayshard was correct to run away because the cop was a bad egg. Now that we know the cop was a bad egg, Rayshard was justified.
Right? That’s how that works, right?
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Precisely.
a so-called "nonleathal" weapon is only nonleathal in the hands of a trained professional. nonleathal does not mean "not at all dangerous to the safety of others".
In the video one can see that the suspect turned towards the cop and fired the taser. The shot appears to have gone high, over the cops head. However, the movements of the officer appear to me to imply the taser wires fell on him after the darts passed over him, delivering a partial charge to the cops head. Firing a taser into a cops face should result in a bullet to your head, in my opinion. a ten thousand volt burst to your head is not nonleathal. That is why they are used by professionally trained individuals that deliver the charge to center of mass so that the body can absorb the shock and stop the leg and arm muscles from moving momentarily. Not explode a person's eyeballs by shocking their brain directly.
That said, the "I feared for my life" defense that cops use as a blanket excuse for otherwise unlawful shootings needs to be amended... once used, it may should keep a cop out of jail, but then also disqualify you to continue being a police officer, on the account of being too much a fucking pussy to do the job safely. So cops can trade their careers (and be permanently banned from owning handguns) for that one time defense... or take the "justified shooting" stance and risk their freedom on a jury's call.