The police commander has been suspended in the therapist (Kinsey) shooting case due to “inconsistencies in his statements”.
Dude, a guy with a truck just killed 84 people in Nice. With how realistic toy trucks are nowadays, it’s easy to understand the confusion.
NO you damn fool, the one about the autistic guy and the dude lying on the ground and the cop saying “I don’t know” – don’t pretend you did not understand. Justified? Or what?
If there was less evidence, not enough to make a conviction likely, he shouldn’t be prosecuted. It’s a good thing that video evidence is showing up more and more often. Sadly, on this board and elsewhere, people can somehow watch a video of someone trying to pull a gun on a cop and still say it wasn’t self defence. People have bought so strongly into the narrative of racist murders and executions by cops being a routine thing that they literally ignore the evidence of their eyes.
As for the other things, of course they are possible, and if they can actually be shown to be happening they need to be stopped. None of which affects the fact that, if someone claims to be the victim of an attack so serious that they had to kill to escape it, they should be treated as a victim unless proven otherwise. This is what people (rightly) want for other crimes, the same standard should be used here.
{quote]And have you ever seen Serpico?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. And many other historical films, the events it covers were about half a century ago. Things have changed greatly since then, at least in part due to Frank Serpico’s actions.
I’ve not said anything about that case at any point, and wasn’t talking about it in my comments.
Are you talking about the incident where the cops were attending an emergency call where someone had reported an armed man in the road, and got there to find someone in the road who ignored their instructions. So it can be spun both ways.
But to answer the question, based on what relatively little evidence there is so far - probably not justified, probably negligence rather than any crime with intent. Certainly not attempted murder, or attempted execution, or anything absurd like that.
You should probably look up what “execution” actually means.
You might want to learn about reality vs. fantasy.
But my point isn’t that someone should be prosecuted without evidence – it’s that many Americans, especially many black Americans, have good reason to fear and distrust police officers. If there are and have been many cases like Sean Groubert which were not recorded, and an innocent person who did nothing wrong was killed (or injured and then prosecuted on a lie), then it’s entirely reasonable for some to view police with terror and even anger.
How do you know how much things have changed? If there are lots of non-recorded Sean Grouberts out there, who were defended and supported by their departments, then it sounds like some things haven’t changed out there.
Frank Serpico says you’re wrong, Steophan.[
](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160)
(bolding mine)
There’s a lot more at the link (it’s a 4 page piece titled “The Police Are Still Out of Control”) but I think that should be sufficient to show that according to Frank Serpico, no, things haven’t really changed all that much since Frank Serpico’s “actions”.
(Please note that some quotes may be from other than the first page of the piece.)
(bolding mine)
But they didn’t get there to find someone in the road who ignored their instructions; that is (at best) an incomplete description. Why don’t you finish it and be accurate?
Yes, they did. There is a video showing they guy with the truck ignoring police instructions. You’ve just proven my earlier comment about people literally refusing to believe their own eyes and ears.
But my whole point was that that wasn’t the whole story, and neither was the other description of events. But far too many people, here and generally, wish to spin every event in as anti-police a fashion as possible.
As I said before, this looks like police negligence, in that they failed to check what was in his hands or listen to what the carer was saying. But that’s a mistake, albeit an unacceptable one, not evidence of malice on an individual or institutional basis.
Of course it was a mistake – but a mistake might be a sign of systemic and institutional problems, especially when combined with other incidents.
He seems to think that the police shouldn’t have the same right to self defence as anyone else. He’s wrong.
That’s not how I read it at all.
It makes a pleasant change for someone else to see that it’s a mistake, rather than an attempted execution or whatever.
That’s what most of these bad shootings were – mistakes. Some mistakes, like Sean Groubert’s, are criminal mistakes. Some may not be. I think all these mistakes, along with other evidence, are signs of systemic problems with deadly force in policing.
Nobody is spinning this incident in an anti-police fashion. This is just reality.
The people who made the police look bad here were the police. By their own account of the events, they shot and then handcuffed the guy they thought was the victim.
No, they got there to find two people in the road, one whom had a toy truck.
As I said, your description is deceptive by being incomplete. Your failure/refusal to accurately and completely describe things as I requested seems to indicate that you have a serious bias.
Your point is, as Skwisgaar Skwigelf would say, dildos.
The attempted cover up is what indicates malice on an individual and possibly an institutional level; no one has tried to argue otherwise regarding Mr. Kinsey’s shooting here.
We note that you have not addressed the attempt to cover this up, tho.
Also, IMO the phrase “police negligence” is not going to win you any arguments or converts when used to describe people getting abused, beaten, shot and/or killed by police. It’s far too innocent sounding and lacks any indication of gravitas. Littering is a negligent act; killing people is much harder to describe with the same word because of the attendant connotations.
It seems clear that you didn’t read the linked article. If you had, you surely would have seen that what you wrote above is utterly wrong:
I’m starting to doubt the sincerity of your positions, Steophan.
So failing follow an officer’s instructions is a capital crime.
And the Reynolds incident demonstrates that following an officer’s instructions is also a capital offense.
I suppose the only option is to become a law enforcement officer yourself. (For limited values of enforcement.)