I don’t know what your hyperbolic sarcasm is intending to prove. Could you drop out of character for a bit and give me the tl:dr?
No. It’s rather obviously rhetorical. There’s no threat that he’s going to do anything. It’s him saying that killing white people would be treated differently.
If they thought it was a real threat, there would be no reason for a psych eval. The threat would be the crime. It’s not as if the guy who said he’s shoot up his school on Facebook (as a bad joke) got a psych eval. He was just flat out arrested.
The reason to go for a psych eval is that it offers you more time than a simple arrest. And the NYPD is already known for these mob-like tactics, including refusing to police because they were upset over a protest.
They’ve lost any benefit of the doubt.
Are you fucking serious? It was his brother. Its not his ENTIRE family but it is his family. And the brother isn’t alone in thinking this. The internet is filled with the supporters of BLM that are wondering why the passerby didn’t tackle or shot to disable the suspect. Do you think I was trying to make it seem like every living member of his family lined up for a press conference and denounced the shooting of their unarmed relative?
"Strother’s family, on the other hand, was appalled by the praise of Strother’s killer.
“They are calling him a Good Samaritan?” Strother’s brother, Louis Strother, said to the News-Press. “Was my brother armed?”"
I’m not the only one referring to him as family.
Its pertinent to the controversy because some people seem to think that cops shouldn’t kill an unarmed suspect. If the cop had killed this guy and there was no video or photos to exonerate him, BLM might be threatening to burn down another city unless the prosecutor did what they wanted.
It is also pertinent because people keep saying cops should be de-escalating and this particular cop was known for doing exactly this and it might have almost gotten him killed.
Yeah, I’d like to hear this too.
Yes. Your overly hostile tone to my questions doesn’t help to dissuade.
So you just picked up where the writer left off; got it.
Which people think that should be policy? Can you offer a cite? :dubious:
“Might”? What evidence do you have that he tried to de-escalate this situation? :dubious:
Drop the act, SB, it’s not fooling anyone.
Regards,
Shodan
What act is that? 
Yes, that act.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps the hostile tone is a response to your ridiculous question/accusation.
No, I’m just pointing out how ridiculous your question/accusation was.
Wait, you need a cite for people saying that cops shouldn’t kill an unarmed suspect? Pfft. You know you’ve lost this argument right?
None. That’s why there are so many qualifiers in that sentence. 
I was just pointing out that this cop was known to de-escalate and somehow a cop with a gun ended up with an unarmed man sitting on his pounding the shit out of him.
Acting like the aggrieved party when I respond to a question like:
“First, why did you use the word “family” to describe one person?”
with “Are you fucking serious? It was his brother.”
That’s not hostility, that is bewilderment at stupidity.
Then when I offer a cite showing you articles that refer to “his family” you imply something (I have no idea what) that I am just picking up where the article left off.
Or asking about policy proposals when I was clearly referring to BLM thugs equating the shooting of unarmed suspects to police brutality.
That is the problem with too much of the left these days. They have adopted the tactic of the right. They don’t argue their way to the truth anymore, they argue their way into making themselves right.
This is part of the reason why Hillary lost. The left has become immune to (or at least intolerant of) dissenting views.
Y’all rememberOfficer Slager, who shot a person in the back then got caught on video planting evidence?
Yeah, apparently a lone juror “cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict.” 'Cuz, y’know, being shown on video shooting someone in the back then planting evidence isn’t enough.
I wonder if it was one of our resident police apologists that was on that jury. I could see starving artist refuse to convict a cop even with perfect evidence that the cop murdered someone.
Funny you should say that. While you were posting your little swipe at me I was composing the following:
For the record and not having heard everything the jury heard, I’d likely vote for a manslaughter conviction. I don’t think Slager is a trigger-happy racist intent on killing some black guy just for the hell of it, but I also don’t think cops should shoot someone who’s running from them unless they present a clear and present danger to the public or other officers.
I’ve felt for decades that the police are often too quick to shoot when the circumstances don’t really call for it. They’ve shot and killed people in cars (sometimes innocent passengers) who they claim were trying to run over them when in reality the suspect was only trying to get away and not aiming at any cops at all. They’ve shot and killed a homeless woman on the street in my town from a distance of twenty or thirty feet in broad daylight who was only armed with a knife. In another instance I’m aware of they killed a guy who refused to put down a big rock. In my opinion this sort of stuff is not only unnecessary and wrong but cowardly.
Officers want and deserve to come home to their families at night, but a certain amount of risk comes with the job and I’ve said already that it appears they’re being trained to fire at the suggestion of a threat rather than one that exists in reality, and in my opinion this has resulted in a lot of people being shot by the police who shouldn’t have been.
And how do you feel with tampering with evidence and obstructing a murder investigation?
If he had left the taser where it was, then he could try to claim the story and that the shooting was justified i one way or another. Moving the taser means he knew it wasn’t justified, and that he was committing himself to lying and potential perjury to try to cover up that fact.
Once again, a situation where if there were not video, then the lying cop would be taken at face value, and the victim would be blamed for his unjustified murder. This is why, when someone points out a stat of how many shooting were justified, I only really believe them if there is video. Not saying that I think that every shooting without video is murder, but I certainly am not inclined to take a cop’s word for it with no other evidence, any more than a cop and jury would take my word for it if they found me standing over a dead body.
Of course, even with video, apparently, there are those who will believe what they want to believe, and will never convict a cop, no matter the evidence, and that was the case with the jury in the case, and I believe in the Ray Tensing trial as well.
I am glad to hear that, at least in this case, you would have found the evidence compelling enough to sanction the cop. Though personally, the cover-up and lying would have prejudiced me to have considered the cop in a very negative light. You don’t lie and cover-up when you didn’t do anything wrong.
Now, I am of the mind that any time one person’s life is ended at the hands of another, there should be an extensive inquiry, almost a trial, if not an actual trial. Even if you didn’t do anything wrong as a cop, doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have done better. They don’t fire doctors every time they lose a patient, but they still go in front of a board that will nit-pick every decision they made, not to necessarily punish the doctor, but to help to prevent such things happening again.
I think that juror agrees with Slager’s claim that he was deathly afraid that Scott would get out of range.
“I had to shoot him now, or I wouldn’t be able to shoot him later.”
yes, that is definitely the case
Please tell me that isn’t an actual quote.
If shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and then planting a taser on them doesn’t make you think that he had ill intent (racist or not), what would?
You know who else thinks that? Every murder law in every state. Shooting an unarmed person in the back is very very hard to characterize as anything other than some type of murder unless the gun went off accidentally. Five times.
And what if anything do you think the consequences should be to the offending officers?