You’re assuming people know about it.
St. Louis police changed “Whose streets, our streets!” while arresting protesters:
The purpose of the thread is to inform, not to merely scold. Your post has so many underlying assumptions contained within 23 words that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it would serve no purpose to point them out, but Ruken was kind (or foolish) enough to start.
Be fair, tho, andy:
So at least it was not and is not condoned by the upper ranks; there’s that. Most likely a spontaneous thing, and IMO understandable and even defensible, except that police maybe shouldn’t be taunting the people they arrest.
People have posted lots of stories about white people being the victims of police violence in this thread, you mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
Also, the story you linked to was posted on the BBC website one hour ago. One hour ago, i was in bed, asleep. I did not know that this story even existed. Now that you have posted about it, i know about it. Congratulations on making your first useful contribution to this thread.
Nothing to do with being white, it’s to do with being part of a minority that is actually still legally oppressed. Had this been a black person killed - even in these circumstances, where it’s quite likely legitimate - it would have been front page news and posted several times by people here, not something I’d originally hear about on LGBT pages on Facebook, and have to search for a news story on.
Always assume foolery where I am involved.
Yeah, you’re right, it’s being completely ignored.
BBC
USA Today
New York Daily News
Atlanta Journal Constitution
The Guardian
Newsweek
Washington Post
CBS News
CNN
And if you go to each link, you’ll see that in the vast majority of cases, the story was posted late on Sunday night, or very early on Monday morning, when a considerable portion of this board’s membership is asleep. This is an inevitable part of the news cycle—stuff that happens from Friday afternoon through Sunday night is often not fully reported, especially in the national press, until Monday morning. It’s exactly why politicians who want to release bad news without much fanfare or attention do the famous Friday evening news dump.
I agree that this is an important story. If i had seen the story before coming to this thread, i would have posted it myself. But the first thing i saw when i opened my email this morning was a message that there had been new posts in this thread, so i came here. As i said, i learned about this incident from your post, precisely because i came here before i went off browsing the news sites. And, as Snowboarder Bo notes, bringing these incidents to other people’s attention is precisely one of the reasons that this thread was created.
So, as i said before, thank you for making your first useful contribution to this thread.
Regarding the case in question, it seems pretty clear to me that the young woman was mentally disturbed or something similar, and was intentionally advancing on the police. I’m still not sure they needed to use deadly force on her. If you’re interested in actually discussing the incident, rather than simply using it as a pathetic attempt to make an idiotic point about what people do and don’t care about, maybe you could weigh in on what you think about this particular police shooting? Who knows, you might manage to make your second useful contribution to the thread, although i’m not holding my breath
Like Miguel Richards?
I think the original goal behind asset forfeiture was that a major criminal kingpin could use ill-gotten gains to hire a platinum legal defense team, which would subvert justice.
The abuse problem that has arisen is the premise that a large amount of cash is indicative of criminal activity: people who operate above-board these days use cards, paypal, e-funds transfers and other non-cash methods, so if you have more than a few hundred on you, you must be hiding something. But when cash is seized as “evidence”, the “suspect” is often sent on their way with no charges levied. This makes recovery of the seized assets very difficult, because the issue gets buried within the system.
Cash is not a person, so it does not, in and of itself, have presumption of innocence. The owner is thus burdened to prove the innocence of the cash in order to free it. Occasionally, they will get a compensatory settlement, but often they end up getting just a fraction of it back. Perhaps this is similar to a wrongly-convicted person who spends years in prison before being exhonerated: there is no way for the state to give them back those lost years.
It’s probably because you’re a moron.
It has had already been shown that this was widely reported, video included, on many major news sites.
It is also obvious that this was a case of suicide by cop. The cops in the video were not quick to fire their weapons. I was actually surprised about how patient they were. They kept a safe distance while giving commands while the suspect continued to advance.
Now, we could talk about why a kill shot was needed rather than him being tackled, hit with a club or a non-lethal round or a taser, but they gave the kid a lot chances.
Do cops carry Tasers on them? I would figures while one covered the student with his gun, the other could maybe go for his taser.
Don’t know why, but it seems like tasers apparently see a lot more use on already handcuffed individuals posing no threat.
I know why; cops are bullies.
That’s not a defence for nobody else posting it here…
These ones didn’t, according to the article I linked to.
God you’re a trolling piece of shit.
Too many killer cops, not enough time.
Because you are a moron. It wasn’t controversial. It was cops behaving as they should have behaved. Doesn’t quite fit the spirit or stated purpose of this thread.
Maybe you could start another thread? “Routine Encounters with Law Enforcement where cops do what they are supposed to do!” Of course, it should be in MPSIMS.
As are the vast majority of other cases linked to in this thread, often where people armed with a lot more than a pocket knife threaten the police. What could the difference be, why is it fine to shoot an LGBT person but not a black one?
Maybe the title of this one should be changed to “Stupid and/or crazy people threaten the police, and people are inexplicably outraged when they get shot”.
I guess this doesn’t fit the narrative.