Well, obviously, if that had been a white guy, the cop would still have panicked and emptied his weapon in him and then been acquitted.
You missed one. Gotta keep 'em all honest, right?
This is indeed surprising.
It seems we have found the pale beyond which Smapti will not pass.
Smapti bedrock is 5 bullets shot into a law-abiding, compliant citizen while his fiancé and little girl watch in horror.
Bloody hell, that is heart-breaking.
*“I wish this town was safer.” *
That little girl knows the danger her mother is in, while in police custody.
And why the fuck is the mother in cuffs!?
Although as the mother points out, that seems to be the safest thing for her in that dangerous situation.
“They’re not gonna shoot me, OK. I’m already in handcuffs.”
Even the little girl understands this. She panics when her mother wishes aloud that they’d take the cuffs off her.
To serve and protect? Bullshit.
This is the back breaker for me. Again I think for the most part the problem stems from bad hiring practices and poor training. The fact that the judicial system keeps allowing it to happen is perplexing.
Not even black cops are safe from white cops who are “in fear of their lives.”
That phrase has become a license to kill.
I haven’t kept track of this thread in a while, but I thought Smapti’s view of cops changed at least somewhat significantly after seeing how many of them voted for Trump?
Wow! :eek:
This is pretty strong language coming from you, Smapti.
I was just reading that story on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website. What really gets me is this description of how it happened:
So two cops have already got this scene under control, and another cop turns up and just starts blasting. It seems that often, in these tense situations, the most likely cause of mayhem is an officer arriving on the scene late. Or is there some sort of rule that says, if you roll up on a situation in progress, you just fire at the first black guy you see?
I’m sure it was an oversight but you neglected to mention that the country abolished slavery after a bloody civil war and also eventually made Jim Crow laws illegal.
This single, apparently-innocuous sentence is a perfect reminder of how simplistic the thinking is on these issues in so much of America. Slavery ended and Jim Crow laws were rescinded so, in the minds of some Americans, slavery and Jim Crow are no longer relevant in a discussion of race and inequality in the United States. It’s precisely this sort of narrow and blinkered historical thinking that helped to get us where we are now.
Just because there have been improvements—and no decent historian would deny that there have been many—does not mean that the legacy of those historical institutions magically disappeared, and can therefore be discounted in our modern era. De facto and de jure discrimination continued well beyond the official end of slavery and the official end of “separate but equal,” and the social and political and economic consequences of discriminatory laws and rulings and policies persist in American life today.
You can’t just hand-wave away slavery and Jim Crow; they have to be part of the discussion, which is precisely what Muffin was pointing out. And, as RandMcnally suggested, for anyone who actually knows the history, this isn’t even really a very controversial set of observations. If you want to see a good example of how these historical inequities connect with present-day racial disparities in American society, i recommend Ta-Nehisi Coates’ excellent article, The Case for Reparations, from the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. If you want some more specialized historical monographs, i could recommend enough to keep you reading for months.
Yes, one day white folk woke up and said, hey, maybe we should treat negros a little better. Just like that, spontaneously, they decided to shelve there assholery. All the “COLOREDS” sections were merged into the “WHITES” areas, anybody could sit anywhere on the bus, and no black people had difficulties ever again after that. Only just a few short years after the Jim Crow laws were put into place.
What on god’s green earth do you think you’re proving here?
RandMcnally was summarizing a few relevant key points of Muffin’s post (which you read, of course?).
And you will be pleased to note that **Muffin **did indeed acknowledge that both slavery and Jim Crow laws are no longer in effect in the US.
When you say “the country abolished slavery after a bloody civil war”, maybe you need to think about the definition of civil war. Slavery and Jim Crow were abolished by the US government against the bloody protestations of a huge chunk of the country.
That slavery and Jim Crow were eventually done away with does not mean that the prejudices and problems that led to and were fostered by those institutions just disappeared when they were made illegal. If you cannot see how that pertains to the current issues of racial discrimination and tension in the US, and specifically in relation to the issue of police violence against black Americans, then maybe you’re one of the folks RandMcnally is talking about.
Or, what mhendo said.
Well, when Sammy Yatim was killed in Toronto, he had been isolated on a street car and there was no threat to anybody. Then Officer Forcillo show up on the scene and 30 - 40 seconds later Yatim is dead. At least he was, strangely, convicted of attempted murder.
The first salvo was fired with intent to kill Yatim, and did kill Yatim. The jury found the first salvo justified because the Yatim had not dropped the knife and was moving forward to the exit/police, so no conviction was made based on that killing.
The officer did not realize that he had succeeded in killing Yatim with his first volley and did not take into account that Yatim was on his back and not moving, but still fired the second salvo with intent to kill Yatim, so he was convicted of attempting to murder the person he had just killed.
At the request of the city’s Chief of Police, a retired Supreme Court of Canada made an investigation and report on police policies, practices, procedures and services concerning the use of lethal or potentially lethal force, especially when encountering emotionally or mentally disturbed people or cognitively impaired people.
The provincial ombudsman also put out a major report that delved into not just the immediate circumstances, but also the longstanding underlying circumstances, particuarly the training of police and the police culture.
The reports have been well received and taken very seriously by the public, by the City, and by the police, so although there is still a very long way to go, the problem is being addressed on an ongoing basis and is not being swept under the rug and being normalized.
Holy shit. None of that would ever happen in the US.
Well, I mean the things after the killing.
I understand that and I am glad that it was taken seriously, next they have to do something about carding. I just mentioned the incident because it fit the point about the last cop on the scene causing problems. Now, that I think about it was at least one more example mentioned in this thread.
I remember a few years there was video of cops breaking up a teen pool party. Things were calm, they were talking to the police, when a cop arrives at the scene, starts yelling at the teens, does a combat roll, and ends up pulling a gun.
[No Charges for the Texas Pool-Party Cop](https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/mckinney-pool-officer/488525/)
I’m not worried about this. The guy shot a cop, and everyone knows what happens when you shoot a cop, right?
Right?
$3 million settlement in Castile killing.