Cardboard tube = bad touching!
Right!? Starving Artist???
At what numerical point does the situation warrant action on our part? At what point does it demand action? Is there a level you are willing to accept?
Yo, Starkers!
Was it opened, or closed? Never got that question resolved by you, its still upthread, any time you’re ready.
And what is it about this that seems so overwhelmingly crucial to you? Was there a shotgun taped to the door handle? He was gonna rip the door off the hinges and throw it at the cops? Or he was gonna reach inside, grab a weapon, bring it to bear and use it before anybody shot him? Shit, he’d be plumb full of lead!
There have been plenty of videos showing Terence Crutcher lowering his hands to reach for his car door. I didn’t realize that people were disputing this? My problem with the shooting is that this is not an imminent enough threat to shoot someone. I can believe that Officer Shelby honestly believed that her life (and the lives of her fellow officers were in peril) and that is what might make this manslaughter than murder but I don’t think you can call it self defense. The threat isn’t imminent enough.
The only reason why following instructions is relevant is because it provides a basis for shooting the taser.
If Terence Crutcher had disobeyed orders and walked a mile down the road with half a dozen police officers in tow, they STILL couldn’t shoot him. Reaching for a car door just doesn’t seem like enough to shoot someone. But it is more than enough to taser them.
Some people have to impose moral overtones to anyone that disagree with them. Its an instinct that conservatives and liberals share.
Well, I don’t think we should sit idly by and tolerate much (or any disparity) outside of some margin of error and frankly I don’t want to see cops being bad cops no matter what.
I still think it is likely that there is at least a subconscious level of fear that cops might feel towards black men that they don’t feel towards white men and that affect how they police. This may not be a subconscious reaction that is isolated to cops. It may be more universal than that.
That is why I support the use of body cams and charging cops with conspiracy after the fact if a cop lies to protect a bad cop. I was totally in favor of BLM protests until the rioting and looting started to become a predictable element of their protests. Now I am less than totally in favor of BLM protests.
Police tasers are supposed to have cameras in them. I wonder what became of that footage.
It’s crucial to me because I believe she was trained to regard such an action as a deadly threat. Prior to this thread I believe much as you appear to, that an officer who already has the drop on a suspect would have plenty of time to fire before a suspect could produce a gun, aim it and fire it. I said so earlier in the thread. I changed my mind after viewing this video (as did former police shooting protester and activist Jarret Maupin), which I’ve posted in this thread before. The salient moment occurs at about 1:32 and again at 3:00.
As you can see, having the drop on someone is no guarantee that an officer can shoot first even when he already has his gun drawn and pointed at the suspect.
So I can understand the sort of training that would cause the police to regard any situation where a suspect (or subject, if you prefer) could duck out of sight or reach into an area out of the officer’s sight as a deadly threat and to shoot if that happens.
I’m sure that you and many of thread’s posters would be outraged if an officer were to shoot someone merely for stepping behind a car, especially if it were determined after the fact that they had no weapon. But I have a hard time faulting an officer who’d been trained to do so, because 1) the suspect could indeed have been going for a gun and could have shot the officer before the officer could react; and 2) the officer was following established procedure and doing what he or she been trained to do.
This is yet another reason why compliance is important. People don’t necessarily know what actions the police have learned through experience is threatening. Thus they can inadvertently do things that cause the police to shoot, as happened to Terence Crutcher and Philando Castille.
I was posting to this thread before you were, dumbass. In fact, I’ve never brought up the rape thing before, you lying pedophile apologist.
And now you’re distancing yourself from your comments that you made in writing on this board, in the hope that no one will bother to look them up? You think no one ever read them? Are you genuinely that stupid?
Go ahead, tell us again how you proved Sandusky couldn’t have raped that kid. Tell everyone. This is your opportunity to defend your hero. Go for it.
You piece of shit.
Some things are just wrong. Like if you were discussing how a pedophile had been convicted of rape. But someone who didn’t like the idea of his football hero being a coward decided to defend him by claiming the rape wasn’t physically possible. And someone had the courage to speak up and say that he had been raped at that age in the exact same way. But this piece of shit poster wasn’t going to back off his claims that the rape wasn’t physically possible, because he didn’t want to lose an argument on the internet.
I don’t think there’s any moral code that I could believe in that would make that behavior acceptable.
It’s always a possible element of protest, by the very nature of the beast. Anyone of conscience must consider that. But “predictable”? By whom? Did you know which protests would turn badly, before they happened?
Are they to be robbed of their right to protest as well as suffer the injustice they are protesting? Because of consequences which may arise? How much worse would something have to get before you protest, if you have to be assured of Damuri Ajashi’s unstinting support?
Its either worth the risk, or it isn’t. They believe they have a legitimate grievance. The evidence before us says they have a point. And if we have to make an error, lets err on the side of assuring justice, rather than presuming it.
Sorry, must have you confused with some other frustrated loser who still can’t let the issue go even though it’s been four or five years now.
Hardly. If you’ll recall, I defended myself so vigorously in threads all over the board that I was eventually prohibited from talking about the subject at all outside the Paterno thread. Since that prohibition was lifted I’ve made it a practice to only discuss the issue there so as to frustrate jerks such as yourself whose only interest in bringing it up at this late date is to attempt to troll me.
Oh, come on now, trolly. Is it really your impression that I’ve somehow been lacking an opportunity to speak my mind on this issue? I mean, you know, after my having already done so hundreds of times by now?
Like you said, some things are just wrong…like pretty much every word in the paragraph that followed.
Again, this guy is a liar. I’ll be happy to explain how and why to anyone at any time in the Joe Paterno thread. Derailing threads may be permitted in the Pit but that doesn’t mean I have to play along.
Really? Please explain concisely how you’re not a pedophile defender? For the SDMB masses who don’t want to wade through the Paterno Pit thread. Please?
The rest of us can exchange “pedophile defender” with the term cop apologist when describing you.
I have to add, “pedophile defender” is as low as I’d thought a poster on this board could sink to–and I’m a '99er!
This is why people, especially black people, don’t believe in the good/bad cop dichotomy.
Chicago police officers allowed to keep working after having sodomized a motorist with a screwdriver.
Wouldn’t good cops refuse to work in the same department where this kind of behavior was tolerated? Why aren’t we hearing from all the good cops who are incensed that these sick dudes aren’t even being disciplined?
It’s not that we have good cops who are being marred by a couple of bad cops. I’m starting to think we have cops suffering from varying degrees of “don’t give a fuck.” Few of these people are folks I’d actually call “good”.
Well, if he was on PCP or meth, then he has superpowers, maybe screwdriver in the rectum is his only weakness. I am sure that shodan or SA will be along shortly to defend these actions, and to explain how the officers only performed these action in self defense and the defense of the public.
Bad institutions can turn decent people into monsters, or people who tolerate or selectively ignore monstrosities. Agree that it’s more than just bad apples.
IMHO, this is a big problem with the BLM movement.
1- It skews the issue to make it seem that black males are shot much more often than any other group. As has been pointed out by several studies, this is not the case. Although black males are shot way too often, so is everyone else.
2- While police brutality is abhorrent towards any and all groups and the public should have protections against it, the majority will be less concerned about it if they believe it is directed at a group other than themselves. While the BLM movement tries to project an image where the black males who are shot are fine, upstanding people who are just standing on the corner, minding their own business, every time it turns out there was obvious aggression from the black male reinforces the belief of the majority that this isn’t their problem, but a problem for those who exhibit aggression towards police.
3-Often, the apparent unfairness of the situation is used to justify the protests and unrest by the BLM movement. Of course, the protest and unrest by the minority contribute to the belief by the majority that the problem is not their problem. It’s a reinforcing cycle.
4- Finally, the BLM is relying on the majority to be outraged because black males are being targeted and that this outrage will bring about change. That is, they are depending on the charity of the majority to address a problem with the minority. While things like that happen, it isn’t as effective as a problem of the majority needing to be addressed by a minority.
The problem I have with elucidator’s question is that it seems he is asking what is the number of black males would be acceptable for the police to shoot? That is, you don’t have to worry (or consider) such police actions against white people (and it does happen; it is just not reported as widely). This allows the majority to believe the problem (police brutality leading to a police state) is not aimed at them (which, of course, it is).
The real problem is that the police are killing unarmed, nonthreatening American citizens in the guise of protecting the public. The reason for this is that this is what they are trained to do. The public will not demand the training be changed until they realize this is not a black male issue but a public safety issue and it appears to me that the BLM movement is enabling politicians and police forces across the nation to ignore it (which, of course, is completely opposite their stated goal). The result the BLM movement is likely to obtain is changes in the numbers (would killing even more whites make it all right?) and not addressing why so many police seem to be so afraid of the general public that shooting first (and continuing until your weapon is empty) seems to be the logical choice.
Good points, and some that I have made before. The problem with blaming BLM for not being inclusive enough in its protests is that there were few protests for any shootings before. It wasn’t that police brutality against blacks was being ignored, its that police brutality against the public was being ignored.
I will agree that BLM is focused on black lives, and just as you see BLM relying on the charity of the majority, I don’t see why the majority should rely on the charity of BLM.
An “All lives matter” movement isn’t a terrible idea, if it is not done cynically, and I think that name is already burned. I say this because you don’t have to be a minority to be targeted by police. If you are poor, if you have a drug problem, if you have mental health issues, or have had legal troubles in the past, it doesn’t matter your ethnicity, there is a good chance that your encounters with police will be a less than positive experience. And this is because the value of the lives of the poor, the drug addicted, the mentally unwell, and people who have committed crimes in the past do NOT matter, not to police, not to the public, certainly not to posters in this thread who would describe them as miscreants or dregs of society.
If a cop abused, tortured or killed me without damn good justification, there is a very good chance that he would lose his job, maybe even go to jail, but I am a white, middle aged, business owner with quite a number of relatively powerful acquaintances who would put pressure on the local press, the PD, and the city council, because, apparently, my life matters to people who are able to do something about it. If I had been sodomized by a screwdriver, there is no way that cop would be walking about a free man. If I were restrained and sprayed full in the face with mace, that cop would be off the force. If I were beaten and arrested for sitting on my mother’s porch, those cops would be fired and facing assault charges. That’s white privilege, I suppose…, but my point is that everyone should have that. If anyone is abused, tortured or killed unjustly by a cop, it SHOULD matter. It should matter not just to their friends, not just to the people in their social circles who are unable to do anything about it. It should matter to every single one of us.
It should not be up to BLM to be protesting police abuse. It should be up to all of us.
Not all tasers come with cameras. Its an extra feature that costs extra money. I don’t know if this one had a camera but generally speaking I think body cams are preferable to taser cams.
When you post something from another thread and then fail to post a cite when someone asks for a cite then we really just have to take your word for it. I also notice that you have backed off the claim that SA said that the physical act of rape is impossible or that it is impossible for a man to rape a boy. So, do you have a cite?