Yet another malicious prosecution of a police officer

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the camera videos--specifically, the first one where he almost hits an officer.

What don't you understand about providing a link when you are asked for one? A number of different posters over a couple of days have asked you to post a link to this alleged video to which you keep referring. To date, no link. Why on earth should anyone take your "interpretations" at face value when you refuse to substantiate your claims?

Do you realize what your persistent refusal to substantiate your claims looks like?

Eternal requests for links are usually just a means of derailing the thread.

I certainly thought the dashcam and bodycam videos had been posted in this thread. Am I mixing it up with another board?

 

[laughing dog]

Eternal requests for links are usually just a means of derailing the thread.

Nonsense. Multiple posters indicated there was no link. Multiple posters asked you to substantiate your claim about what some alleged video showed. All you had to do was post the link, but you have refused to do so. Instead you have succeeded in creating a derail with your refusal to post a link.

I certainly thought the dashcam and bodycam videos had been posted in this thread. Am I mixing it up with another board?

I have no idea what is mixed up in your head. But yet again, you refuse to post a link.

Instead of producing idiotic evasions and stupid excuses, why not produce the link to this alleged video that allegedly shows Chapman committing an alleged felony?

 

[KeepTalking]

What don't you understand about providing a link when you are asked for one? A number of different posters over a couple of days have asked you to post a link to this alleged video to which you keep referring. To date, no link. Why on earth should anyone take your "interpretations" at face value when you refuse to substantiate your claims?

Do you realize what your persistent refusal to substantiate your claims looks like?

Eternal requests for links are usually just a means of derailing the thread.

You only receive eternal requests for links because you never substantiate any point you make with evidence. Links are a handy way of doing that, and if you really have a source for your information, they are extremely easy to produce.

I certainly thought the dashcam and bodycam videos had been posted in this thread.

Well, you were wrong. Now, produce the videos if you want to show that they exist anywhere outside of your imagination.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Loren is confusing the car thief being shot in Chicago (IIRC) with the OP.

 

[zorq]

Loren is being ridiculous. Requests for evidence are NEVER used to derail threads on a skeptic forum. Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail? Besdes, on boards like this that call religion and other sources of superstition on their assumptions and BS, evidence is EXPECTED.

 

[Derec]

Loren is being ridiculous. Requests for evidence are NEVER used to derail threads on a skeptic forum. Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail? Besdes, on boards like this that call religion and other sources of superstition on their assumptions and BS, evidence is EXPECTED.

It is a derail when already posted links are demanded again and again. Like Toni is doing re some witnesses saying that the deceased was "throwing punches".

 

[zorq]

Loren is being ridiculous. Requests for evidence are NEVER used to derail threads on a skeptic forum. Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail? Besdes, on boards like this that call religion and other sources of superstition on their assumptions and BS, evidence is EXPECTED.

It is a derail when already posted links are demanded again and again. Like Toni is doing re some witnesses saying that the deceased was "throwing punches".

Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail?

 

[laughing dog]

Loren is being ridiculous. Requests for evidence are NEVER used to derail threads on a skeptic forum. Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail? Besdes, on boards like this that call religion and other sources of superstition on their assumptions and BS, evidence is EXPECTED.

It is a derail when already posted links are demanded again and again. Like Toni is doing re some witnesses saying that the deceased was "throwing punches".

Since that is not the case in this thread, just wtf is your point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is a derail when already posted links are demanded again and again. Like Toni is doing re some witnesses saying that the deceased was "throwing punches".

Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail?

Because the request for a link avoids addressing the point of the message. If a link is produced there's almost never a response to the message that caused the request for the link.

 

[laughing dog]

Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail?

Because the request for a link avoids addressing the point of the message. If a link is produced there's almost never a response to the message that caused the request for the link.

That is a disingenuous rationale for refusing to substantiate a claim of fact.

BTW, you still have not produce a link to the alleged video showing Chapman allegedly committing an alleged felony. You've had plenty of time to produce the link, so I think it is reasonable to conclude you simply made up that claim.

 

[KeepTalking]

Links are so EASY to produce, how could they be used as a derail?

Because the request for a link avoids addressing the point of the message. If a link is produced there's almost never a response to the message that caused the request for the link.

How would you know, you never provide the link. And rather than do so here, you are participating in a derail about requests for links being a derail. Curious, that.

 

[Derec]

It is a derail when already posted links are demanded again and again. Like Toni is doing re some witnesses saying that the deceased was "throwing punches".

Since that is not the case in this thread, just wtf is your point?

The thing with Toni happened in this thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Since that is not the case in this thread, just wtf is your point?

The thing with Toni happened in this thread.

Are you sure about that? In any event, it is very easy to simply write "The link is in post ____". LP rarely (and that is an over-estimate) substantiates his claims. And usually his "evidence" does not say what he claims - which is why I suspect he is so reluctant to produce his "evidence" in the rare cases when he thinks he has any. Instead of producing the evidence, he ironically derails the topic with his pointless jabbering about derails.

 

[Derec]

Sure it is.

No, it's still the same structure.

Witness statements do not say that he was throwing punches. If you think you know differently, please provide links.

I already have. I am beginning to think that Loren is right and that endlessly asking for sources is a distraction tactic.

He was aggressive, he was charging the officer,” said Paul Akey, a crane operator, who was part of a team from Delaware constructing the Wawa store in Portsmouth. “He was throwing fists like he was street fighting.”
[..]
Portsmouth circuit court has heard from several witnesses that Chapman swung around and tried to break free after Rankin apprehended him, placed him over the hood of a patrol car and began to handcuff him. The two then struggled physically, but accounts differ on what happened from that point.
Steve Price, who said he was about eight feet off the ground operating a scissor lift at the Wawa site, told jurors Chapman was “waving his arms around like he was trying to throw punches” and that Rankin countered with his own. Price and Akey said Chapman appeared to swipe a Taser from Rankin’s hands, and that the pair then separated.
“I saw the officer draw his weapon and the man was just throwing his arms up like he wanted to fight,” said Price. “He threw his jacket off and he proceeded to the officer kind of aggressively like he wasn’t done fighting.” He too used the word “charging” to describe Chapman’s actions.

Note that Guardian is a lefty paper very predisposed toward the #BLM cause.

He had damage from gunfire on his hands. He was shot in his face and in his chest. I honestly thought you were smarter than that. And less dedicated to maintaining your position in the face of actual evidence. I am willing to admit that I was wrong on both accounts.

Do you have a link to the autopsy report? Merely having gunfire damage to his hands does not show that he was using the hands to "shield" himself. Remember that Michael Brown was shot in the thumb when he originally went for the officer's gun. Whether Chapman used his hands to shield himself, surrender or attack we do not know for sure. But the latter is most consistent with his behavior between the attempted arrest and the shooting.

Well, he didn't throw punches, he didn't place the officer in any danger, he probably shoplifted nothing. Likely he had no idea what the officer was going on about and reacted as a human being. You know black people are human beings, right? Just as human as you are. Just as good as you are?

A witness says he did. And even if he didn't you seem to agree that he fought with the officer in some fashion. So he was definitely a danger, especially since he already disarmed the cop of one of his weapons.
I know black people are human beings. Do you? I think they are capable of basic self control when being arrested and that they do not have to lash out like a cornered animal.

Rankin was the aggressor. With a known history and disciplinary record of being inappropriate and of shooting unarmed victims.

Rankin was doing his job. Chapman resisted and chose to fight with the cop.

No. I said he made racist posts. Which he did. And was forced to take down by his police supervisor.

You specifically said they were about Kirill's family in post #50.

BTW, the (former) police officer, who had previously killed an unarmed suspect and posted racist comments about him and his family on FB,

Right but it's hard to claim self defense against someone who is unarmed and not attacking you and not physically within arms' reach of you.

He was attacking him. Unarmed does not mean . And if he wasn't within arm's reach how was he able to knock the taser from Rankin's hands?

Harder to believe that race wasn't a factor if you have a well known, well documented history of making racist posts on FB and other social media, have killed other unarmed 'suspects' before, have talked about fantasies of police killings, have been removed from patrol for THREE YEARS because your conduct was so questionable, have been termed dangerous by others who served with you and so on.

None of this absolves Chapman for responsibility for his actions, to wit resisting arrest and fighting with a police officer (and assault on a law enforcement officer is a felony in Virginia).

Rankin isn't the first officer who has been involved in shooting an unarmed 'suspect' of a very minor offense who has a well established work history showing him to be of questionable stability, incompetence and of using inappropriate force with unarmed individuals. Unfortunately, he won't be the last.

It was a minor offense. Note that Rankin did not shoot him over it, but merely attempted to peacefully arrest him. It was Chapman who resisted arrest. It was Chapman who fought with the cop. It was Chapman who removed Rankin's non-lethal weapon.

Yes he did that.

So the whole escalation is on him.

Not according to witnesses.

According to at least one witness.

He possibly knocked the taser out of Rankin's hand. Possibly. Rankin claims he did but he was facing murder charges--and not for the first time. It's unlikely that he wouldn't do whatever he could to make himself look....less bad.

So what happened to the Taser? Did the fairy-fucking godmother take it? Out-fucking-standing!

Chapman was never armed, never dangerous.

Armed and dangerous are not synonyms. One can be dangerous without being armed. Why is it so hard to understand that Chapman escalated a minor thing into a deadly shooting due to his own actions? No matter what Rankin wrote on Facebook or whom he shot years ago, he never would have shot Chapman if Chapman had not resisted arrest and fought with him.

Unless you are afraid of black men. And even then, Chapman wasn't the issue. Racism was the issue. Not Chapman.

There is no reason to drag race into this. Rankin shot two suspects during his career. One white, one black. Yet the latter one is deemed racist just because of whom he shot. And of course we are to disregard the deceased's behavior that caused the shooting in the first place.

Also, a side note on how probability operates. Let's say the likelihood of a police officer shooting an unarmed suspect with justification over their career is 1 in a thousand. That means that randomly (i.e. without being predisposed to) shooting two people with justification is one in a million. Low odds, but since there are nearly a million police officers in the US it is likely to happen to somebody.

Bull fucking shit and you know it.

No, it is not and you know it.

What threat? Chapman was not the aggressor.

Of course Chapman was the aggressor. He resisted arrest and fought with the cop. Had he been successfully tased he'd have been arrested on felony assault charges among other things.

I agree that adrenaline helped fuel Rankin's murder of Chapman. If Rankin was too cowardly or too incompetent to bear facing a large black teenager, he clearly should have remained at his desk rather than be released for patrol. Or fired for gross incompetence.

Yes, adrenaline affects police officers as well. They are not robocops (although even Robocop was partly human and presumably had a working adrenal gland). That his survival instinct got triggered when attacked by a big and strong suspect does not make him a murderer.

Chapman was legally in the parking lot. He was not attacking anyone. He was leaving the area.

He attacked the cop. And when he is placed under arrest he doesn't have the right to "leave the area". It is the same sort of stupid apologetics made about Mario Woods. "He was trying to walk away from police when they shot him".

Yeah, walk away holding a knife. Knife he used half an hour earlier to stab a man.

Provo, who said he was right beside Rankin when the officer opened fire, said Chapman was shot from about five yards after taking a boxing-style stance and asking mockingly: “Are you going to fucking shoot me?” Provo told jurors: “He never charged, he just made a gesture.”

Tynes, who was in the Walmart parking lot, said the struggle between Chapman and Rankin consisted of shoving back and forth rather than punches being thrown.

Even if he was just shoving that is still assault. And not all witnesses say that this was all that was going on. So how can you say he was not attacking?

Chapman was not the aggressor. Chapman was not attacking Rankin.

Yes on both counts.

So if a police officer decides to try to arrest you, he can just kill you.

How does that follow? He did not "just kill him" while arresting him, Chapman resisted arrest and fought with the officer.

Hopefully you will not have to decide whether you really agree with that stance if you are ever in the position of being arrested for one of your crimes.

Oh yes, the ad hominem. I think the laws against sex work are unconstitutional (based on Giswald, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas) but should I ever find myself being arrested for any reason I will not resist and fight with the cop. If I would, the cop would be within his rights to shoot, especially if he has no backup present.

You get that these are totally unrelated cases, separated by distance, time, and jurisdiction, not to mention facts of the case, right?

Yet you think a clearly premeditated, cold-blooded murder of a sleeping victim is "manslaughter" but shooting a suspect who fights with a police officer is "murder". Quite messed up, your moral compass!

There was ample evidence to support 2nd degree murder, IMO.

Like what? And do you agree that there was no evidence for first degree murder charge and that the DA was malicious in charging Rankin with that?

I've posted quotes from witnesses who were in very close proximity who say that Chapman wasn't attacking anyone.

Even your witnesses admit he was fighting with the cop.

Him being white doesn't mean that Rankin wasn't a racist. Him being shot while unarmed and too drunk to be a credible threat is pretty good evidence of Rankin's incompetence, propensity towards unwarranted violence and aggression. Even without Rankin's lengthy social media posting history.

He shot two unarmed suspects, one white, one black. I do not see how you can deduce "racist" from that. If anything, he is an equal opportunity shooter.

Being a racist prick doesn't mean you aren't a prick in other regards and it certainly doesn't put a weapon into the hands of Denyakin. Rankin has a history of shooting unarmed 'suspects' who are suspected of very low level offenses. His own department was concerned enough to put him on desk duty for THREE YEARS. More information about other disciplinary actions is not available.

He was exonerated in the Denyakin shooting. And unarmed does not mean not a threat. Remember Michael Brown shooting? By the way, did anything happen at the 2nd anniversary? I kinda missed it. Was there a repeat of the "Michael Brown 100% off" sale like last year?

Rankin certainly was a threat. He was armed, aggressive, and had killed an unarmed man before. Chapman was not armed, was not attacking Rankin. Was not within arm's reach--actually was several yards away when Ranking shot him. Clearly Rankin was the threat. He was armed and had a history of killing unarmed people.

Chapman was definitely a threat. He resisted arrest, he fought with Rankin, he knocked his taser away. And several yards is no distance at all for an assailant to cross in a second or two. Especially a strapping young lad like Chapma

And a clear history of dangerous conduct that resulted in the death of another unarmed person. Such conduct resulting in THREE YEARS of desk duty. That's a long time. Unfortunately, not long enough.

Do you think that if Chapman had fought with another officer that the result would have been different? I am not so sure.

Well, Rankin has the distinction of having faced charges previously when he killed an unarmed suspect. Not many officers have that distinction. Too many, though. Rankin now has 2 notches on his belt. I'll bet he's proud.

He was exonerated in the first killing. He probably should have been exonerated in the second as well. He certainly should not have been charged with murder.

Which Chapman was not.

FIFY.

It's not really clear that Chapman 'disarmed' Rankin. It is quite clear that Rankin had numerous other options, including retreating or calling for backup.

Backup takes some time to arrive. And why should police have to retreat allowing a violent suspect to escape?

For the record, I support two-man patrols for this reason. Instant backup means police officers can afford to use more non-lethal options because their partner has their back.

That's a matter of opinion. I'd explain it to you in greater detail but I don't think you would be able to understand.

Yupp, exercising your lefty privilege of being able to insult fellow posters with impunity.

Rankin was found guilty of manslaughter, so clearly a jury who was presented the facts in great detail, disagreed with you.

And juries never get things wrong?

Your attempts to assert that anyone deliberately shoots someone in the face and in the chest with any intention other than to kill is ludicrous. You are not fooling anybody with such obvious dodges of the truth.

Again, there is a difference between an intent and known consequence.

Knocking away a taser is self defense, which you would agree to if Rankin had knocked a taser out of Chapman's hands.

Resting arrest is not self defense. Fighting with a police officer who wants to arrest you is not self defense. By that logic, had Chapman been armed, you could say him shooting at a police officer would be 'self defense' as well.

No one is under the obligation to allow someone to taze them.

Not even a police officer? "Don't tase me bro"?

RAnkin had other options especially since 5 yards or so separated him and Chapman. He could have called for back up. He could have retreated. He could have...talked to Chapman. Instead of shooting him in the head and chest.

What about Chapman's options? He could have let Rankin arrest him. He could have not fought him.

You've offered no evidence that Chapman was dangerous. Best case, he was trying to get away from an aggressive individual. Oh, I forgot: Chapman was black. That makes him dangerous, especially if he's male and a teenager.

It has nothing to do with him being black. It has to do with him resisting arrest and fighting with the police officer. You apparently think that this is perfectly acceptable behavior.

He shot someone who was literally falling down drunk. And unarmed.

Drunk people can be dangerous. And he wasn't "falling down drunk" but was banging at the doors with enough force that people called 911.

Tell yourself that all you want. You are not fooling anybody.

You'd think you and ld would have come up with some better material by now.

There are only two choices: survival or death. If you deliberately shoot someone in the head and chest, it's pretty clear the goal is death of the victim. Not survival.
No matter what you try to tell yourself.

Asked and answered.

Shots to the head and chest are generally considered to be lethal. Especially if concurrent.

Certainly in the sense of "capable of causing death". I never disagreed with that. There are still degrees though.

Clearly not.

I wasn't the one who erroneously claimed that there were no degrees of lethality.

Try reading links provided. Or google it yourself. What's your alternative theory?

That it is much more likely that he used his hands aggressively, just like he did ever since Rankin tried to arrest him.

Did Chapman attempt to use the taser on Rankin? No. He was defending himself.

"Defending himself" by committing felony assault.

They were 5 yards apart. That's 15 feet. By your standards, police have the right to open fire on anyone within 5 yards of them. Because they might have the superhuman power to take the gun away.

Most people they come across have not already knocked out their taser from their hands.

Yes, I remember that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Very well.

Funny, I remember there was a "not guilty" verdict.

Witnesses also put Rankin and Chapman as being separated by 5 YARDS. Not 5 feet. 15 feet.

Even if they got separated momentarily they were in close contact much of the time, since they were fighting and Chapman knocked out the taser.
And I'd take the 5 yards claim with a grain of salt anyway. Witnesses are not very good at estimated distances.

Chapman wasn't attacking him. Rankin could have called for back up. He could have retreated. He could have called on any of his police training. He chose instead to shoot an unarmed teenager in the face and in the chest.

How can you say that Chapman wasn't attacking him when even witnesses you choose to believe say that he fought with Rankin?

 

[laughing dog]

Yupp, exercising your lefty privilege of being able to insult fellow posters with impunity.

You routinely insult posters here - even call some trolls and assholes. According to your reasoning, that makes you a lefty.

You can whiteknight a killer police office all you wish. You can denigrate the unarmed black victim all you wish. But you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rankin was found guilty of manslaughter, so clearly a jury who was presented the facts in great detail, disagreed with you.

And juries never get things wrong?

And your right 100% of the time?

 

[Arctish]

Can we establish a sequence of events so everyone knows what everyone else is talking about?

1. Chapman was shopping in a WalMart.

2. Store security called the police to report a suspected shoplifter.

3. Chapman leaves the store.

4. Rankin confronts Chapman.

<missing information: how did Rankin know Chapman was the suspect? What did he say to Chapman? What did Chapman say to Rankin? When/why did Rankin decide to throw Chapman on the hood of his car and use his taser?>

5. Chapman knocks taser from Rankin's hand <missing information: was the taser knocking deliberate or reflexive or accidental?>

6. Chapman moves away from Rankin, throws his arms wide, and dares/challenges/invites Rankin to have a fistfight with him.

7. Rankin shoots Chapman.

Does anyone have more information (properly sourced and with links provided) on the sequence of events? Can we fill in the gaps? I'm particularly interested in what happened before Rankin grabbed Chapman and tried to tase him. The accusation that Chapman attacked Rankin is entirely unsupported. In fact, so far it appears that Rankin was the one who escalated the confrontation from words to a physical struggle to the use of lethal force against a citizen who may have been wrongly accused.