I suggest people check out this video for a little perspective…
The cops knew that a robbery had been attempted, and that the subjects they had encountered matched the description of the suspects. I think that pretty well explains that the cops did know enough to treat these as deadly threats.
[quote=“Hocus_Pocus, post:61, topic:766099”]
I suggest people check out this video for a little perspective…
[/QUOTE]He raises valid points, except for a part at the end which I commented on as Bryan514.
Oh you sweet summer child.
You really think that police are ever subject to consequences? It doesn’t matter if they murder someone on tape - 99% of the time they get a paid vacation.
Depends - what happens *after *the paid leave.
I think you need to educate yourself. Murder is not just a legal word. You must have a dictionary, no? If someone says OJ murdered his wife, do you correct them because OJ was never convicted?
[quote=“Hocus_Pocus, post:61, topic:766099”]
I suggest people check out this video for a little perspective…
[/QUOTE]Wow, I cannot believe the angry reactionary in the video is a Trump supporter. But seriously, please cite anything he said as fact beyond the police account? Again, what evidence do you have that he pulled a gun on the cops? Given almost every responsible article I have read states something like the following:
So I ask again, why are you as sure as the asshat in the you tube video that what supposedly happened happened?
If substantiated, you would be right. However, that is not the point of contention. The asinine point that was originally made, for which you quoted one of my replies, is that an assertion about the deceased’s plans later on allowed the cops to impute mal-intent when they shot him. That is illogical nonsense.
Not saying that it doesn’t happen but I’ve never been given such an order. The right of self defense is sacrosanct in the law of land warfare and if someone points a gun at you, you need not wait until there is a bullet hole in your chest before you consider deadly force. Unlike the movies the bad guys can actually kill you on the first shot they fire.
My point exactly. I wanna live.
Do you?
I don’t hold BigT’s opinions in very high regard.
I’m glad you believe that. I’ll be anticipating your admission.
Ohio’s murder statute doesn’t require premeditation, actually, just the intent to kill.
That the police get to investgate themselves is part of why there’s so little trust in the process.
I just want to get back to the OP and explain why many people get upset about cases like this. Simply put, people do not believe, rightfully or not, that a proper impartial investigation is going to be done in cases like this. Let’s look at one of the few cases we have on record where we get an official police account followed by additional irrefutable evidence that contradicts the account. The Walter Scott case is a perfect example of this. Without that video, how likely do you think it would be that Scott’s killer would have been brought to justice?
Let’s look at some of the details of this case. The wiki about the shooter, Michael Slager states the following:
Don’t you find it strange that several witnesses were supposedly not interviewed, yet the PD cleared him of any wrongdoing? People in many communities see things like all the time. Police don’t hold themselves to the standards they expect of others. Cops even willingly admit such a double standard for minor crimes. For example, here is a famous situation outlining the above.
In the linked video, you will see one cop doing her job, ticketing a another off-duty cops speeding at over 120mph. Here’s an article detailed what happened to the arresting officer:
Now moving forward to this specific incident, the police seemed fine with Slager’s account until the video came out. What confidence can the public have that in a case like this that doesn’t have video evidence will be investigated fairly? Can anyone honestly state they think that Slager would have been charged without the video evidence?
Were you not able to understand what s/he wrote either? And I thought you weren’t talking to me? Couldn’t help digging an even deeper hole, huh?
It means that the pellet gun was probably not planted on him by the cops.
That makes it more likely that the cops saw the gun before they shot the kid.
That makes it more likely that the cop’s version of the story is true.
Not gospel but their account seems very likely. Likely enough to support a claim of self defense.
Because the cops seem to meet the standard of proof that ANYONE would have to meet to substantiate a claim of self defense. There is no special cop standard being applied here.
Are you saying the gun was planted?
Do you have any evidence that things DIDN’T happen the way the cops claim?
Cops killing blacks is a real problem but you’ve got to pick your martyrs better. About half the martyrs seem like they were justifiably killed, starting with Michael Brown. That’s not to say there aren’t problems in Fergusun but Michael Brown is just a bad example.
That really seems to be what you are saying otherwise, you would pick a better case to get agitated about. Or are you just going to get agitated even when you think cops are justified?
So now it seems like you ARE arguing that the cops are lying.
He had a gun that the cops didn’t plant on him. They shot him and not his friend. You think the cops just got lucky and shot the kid that just happened to have a gun on him?
The standard of proof for self defense is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
brickbacon – do you have any actual information here that the police are lying, or is this just your opinion? There is no indication right now that the police are lying – other than you claiming that they are. :dubious:
(And I’m specifically referring to Tyre King, not Walter Scott or anyone else.)
True. Has someone alleged that to be the case? Please cite anyone who has made that argument?
Explain exactly HOW a claim that he planned to rob someone later makes it more likely he pulled a bb gun on the cop earlier?
No it doesn’t. Best I can tell, no one disagrees on the bare facts prior to the actual shooting, so evidence which agrees on all counts is useless for ascertaining what happened.
Why does it seem very likely? Do you know of lots of fleeing suspects pointing bb guns at cops?
Bullshit. Cops typically are given days to make statements and meet with lawyers. Citizens are typically treated very differently. Further, a cop’s statement is typically believed whereas suspects are treated as such.
No, I am asking the question I asked. What did the cops say in the Walter Scott case? Absent the video, would you have said the cops were wrong to have shot Walter Scott?
That’t the point you keep missing. There is often no evidence that will ever contradict what the cops say because the other cops investigating don’t look for it. How exactly can you make a case when the evidence is withheld (as it is routinely), or not gathered?
So to answer your specific question, I don’t have any evidence beyond the reports that others have contradicted what the cops said happened (cited above). It’s apparently he said she said at this point.
I am not looking for martyrs because they generally don’t exist. There will never be a perfect victim, and imperfection doesn’t warrant the death penalty. I am looking for a system which actually attempts to seek the truth and justice. It’s unfair to honest cops too that these cases are almost never investigated properly.
I am going to get agitated every time someone automatically assumes the police account is what actually happened. Doubly so when there are witnesses who disagree.
Then you must have the same reading comprehension problems as your friend cochrane. I have been pretty clear that I have no idea who is lying, but it seems someone is, and the cops have no more a right to be believed just based on them being cops than the other witnesses do.
Were the two of them standing next to one another? Do we even know where one guy was in relation to the other? Why does the friend seem to admit they were planning to rob someone, but not that the guy pulled his gun?
So if you are not arguing that they planted the gun then why the heck are you bringing up Walter Scott?
It makes it more likely that comparisons to the Walter Scott case are irrelevant.
Wait, what?!?! Noone disagrees so evidence that agrees is useless? What?!?!?
Because they say he pointed a gun at them and it is proven that he had a gun. The cops shot only one kid. Did they just get lucky and kill the kid that just happened to have a gun on him? Why didn’t they shoo the other kid as well?
I said that the cops meet the standard of proof that anyone would have to meet. You seem to think that I said that Cops always have to meet the standard of proof that everyone else has to meet.
Bricker can correct me on this but criminal defendants have FOREVER to make a statement (IOW, they never have to make any sort of statement, they can just plead the 5th) and can meet with their lawyers up to the date of trial.
And how is the Walter Scott video relevant to this case if you don’t think the gun was planted?
Is THAT what you are saying happened here? A cover up of evidence that would otherwise have contradicted what the cops are saying in this case?
cited above? Are you thinking of some other thread?
Right now it seems like we have more than just he said she said. We have a gun that was in the possession of the dead kid. If they were just killing kids, then why aren’t the other kids dead too?
Walter Scott wasn’t a perfect victim?
Perhaps you should wonder why so many of your victims are so imperfect. Perhaps they weren’t victims at all.
Well that is going to happen every time. There is a contingent of people who will always assume the cops are innocent. Just like there are going to be people (perhaps you among them) who will always assume the cops are guilty.
I get it, I think cops are assholes too but that doesn’t mean they have to let little punks shoot them before they shoot back.
And sure it is POSSIBLE that they are lying but they seem to meet the standard of proof that any of us would have to meet to substantiate a self defense claim.
They have physical evidence on their side.
So yes, you think the police just got lucky and just happened to shoot the kid with the gun.
I am not directly comparing the two cases as we have no idea what happened in this recent case. I brought up the Scott case to make the point that the police account is not always trustworthy. Scott is a clear cut example of this, but only so due to the very fortuitous fact that someone was taping the incident. As I said, absent that tape, you would have the same people talking about how when you steal a cop’s taser, of course you are asking to be shot despite the fact that didn’t happen.
You are moving the goalposts here. The initial claim was that the allegation that the kid planned to rob someone LATER, gave the cops reason to believe he was armed and dangerous when they shot him. This claim makes no sense as does your response and your weak attempt to juxtapose this case and the Scott case. The unsupportable claim you choose to defend for some reason ONLY works if you illogically assume that his supposed future plans were known by the cops when they shot him. This should be plainly obvious, but for some reason people keep having a problem understanding how time progresses.
Now, I don’t mean to belabor this point, but I feel this needs to be underscored because it hits on a fundamental problem. The reason people keep making this logical leap is because there is an invalid assumption that bad people do bad things, so anything said to have happened to a bad person is probably their fault. I should add that I don’t even begrudge people this heuristic when it comes to inconsequential and mundane interactions. However, I expect a more reasonable and robust process when we are determining whether someone was murdered.
There is one area I find most enlightened people try not to do this: sexual assault. The analogue to what is being argued by you is saying a alleged rape victim is less likely to have been raped if she was planning to have sex with a few guys later that day. Most people understand the future plans of someone doesn’t change the circumstances of an alleged crime committed in the past. Now it very well may be that this kid is a scumbag who did pull his gun on the cops. But that conclusion should be reached after reviewing all the evidence and attempting to reconcile the conflicting accounts as best as possible, and it should be done by an outside, neutral party.
As far as differentiating between who is telling the truth, yes it is useless. If everyone agrees on A, one party stating A happened doesn’t tell us much.
The presence of a gun does not imply that he pointed it at them. It doesn’t not INCREASE the probaility he pointed the gun at them. All it does is create the possibility that it happened. They likely assumed he had a gun given the supposed robbery report, and the fact that they matched the description.
I have no idea, but you don’t either. Were the kids near one another? Without a detailed description of what happened and who was where, etc. we have no basis to ascribe luck or malice or whatever to what happened.
What insight do you have as to the cops meeting that standard? Please cite and detail specific evidence beyond them saying X happened? Because I guarantee if you shot someone, and there where conflicting accounts of witnesses, you would almost certainly not be roaming free just because you said you killed someone in self defense.
In theory, they do. In practice, that is almost never the case for any normal person.
See above. Now please answer the question I posed: absent the video, would you have said the cops were wrong to have shot Walter Scott?
Post 66.
Is this a serious question? I sincerely doubt the vast majority of the cops who have murdered kids woke up with some evil intent desirous to kill any and even kid they come across. At he core, most of these cases are a confluence of circumstances that lead people to make bad choices.
Nope. That became apparent once the smear machine locked in on his drug use, running from the cops, possible warrants, etc.
So being a bad person means you cannot be victimized? If not, what is your point? What does a person’s imperfections unrelated to an incident being discussed have to do with incident?
So? Why should anyone accept injustice because it’s common?
I really wish you would stop implying these things.
Again, please cite some rational people making this argument? If you can’t stop using this strawman.
Really? Please cite that evidence, because the mere presence of a gun is not evidence the kid pointed it at the police.
You’re right.
Investigations of LE shootings would have a lot more credibility if they were conducted by plumbers, computer programers & internet trolls.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Do you know of lots of fleeing suspects pointing bb guns at cops?
[/quote]
Google “suicide by cop.”
brickbacon;
There were “witnesses” who gave accounts that didn’t corroborate what the police said after the shooting of Mike Brown. They said that Brown had his hands up. It later turned out that some of these “witnesses” weren’t even there, and the DOJ investigation (including the autopsy) proved that narrative to be false.
Lawyers are paid in part to create doubt in the minds of jurors & potential jurors. They aren’t paid to tell the truth.