That you feel excluded by Black Lives Matter is too bad. But you should consider whether it has more to do with you, and your understanding of the movement, than the movement itself.
As a white guy, I do not feel that exclusion. What do you think is different about me, exactly?
I don’t feel excluded either. Maybe it’s a “thing” that’s going around?
As long as the BLM is looking for justice, having the “few (yeah right) bad apples” disciplined (not reassigned or retired, but actually charged and convicted), and they do it legally and politically, I support them.
I feel no more excluded by Black Lives Matter than I do when the fire department shows up with sirens and axes and hoses and spends a lot of attention and effort on my neighbor’s house, but none on mine.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. It is an inherently exclusionary, and therefore regressive, movement. As to what makes you different, I guess you don’t greatly care about divisive movements if they superficially seem to be doing something right.
I would feel extremely excluded in that situation, and pretty fucking upset that my house had been left to burn down whilst the one next door had been saved.
Still no responsibility for lying about me, huh?
In my scenario, your house isn’t on fire. Only your neighbor’s is.
In that case it’s not a relevant analogy.
You know what’s stupid? People like you continually demanding detailed plans for proper use of force, while completely ignoring the fact that many police departments all over the world have exactly those plans already available.
That’s a pretty comprehensive plan for the escalating use of force in order to both increase officer safety while reducing fatalities. Now, go ahead and tell me that these cops are all “stupid” for doing exactly what the people here are saying they should be doing.
As questionable as the officer’s behavior is in this case, I can actually understand the judge’s decision. The issue of planting the gun doesn’t really answer the question of whether the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt whether the officer intended to commit the act of murder. As far as the comment itself, “I’m gonna kill that f----er”
is probably something a lot of people might say in the heat of a dangerous automobile pursuit. It’s not necessarily evidence of a premeditated act of murder.
It seems that in retrospect perhaps there might have been other lesser charges that might have stuck, ranging from his handling of the crime scene to manslaughter. But then again, the prosecutors would know the law better than I, so they must have felt that this was their best opportunity for justice.
Yes it is, liar.
I think it’s entirely fair to expect the police, when faced with a hostile person who isn’t armed with a gun, to have alternatives to “shoot to kill”. Being a cop comes with a certain degree of danger. It’s part of the whole “protect and serve” thing. Being willing and able to deescalate a situation, or disarm a knife-wielding subject by non-lethal means, or for that matter not immediately opening fire on an unarmed, violent subject, or unarmed men lying on the ground with their hands up, or any number of other situations you would not expect the cop to shoot you.
I find it odd that a campus centred police force apparently has no policy for people in crisis. If there was ever a pressure cooker, contained environment filled with intoxicants, stress and hormones university would be it.
In 2014 Toronto produced a report on Police Encounters with People in Crisis which in turn led the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to adopt all 22 recommendation in the ONTARIO DIRECTION TO POLICE ON DE-ESCALATION report. It remains to be seen if the attempts to improve training and shift the policing culture work. As the People in Crisis report points out “culture eats training”.
Then, by all means, describe the circumstances under which the police should and should not shoot, and what should happen when they follow your new policy and when they don’t.
Here is a hostile person. He doesn’t have a gun, just a knife. When should he be shot? What should happen if he isn’t shot, and he attacks a cop, or someone else?
Regards,
Shodan
Jesus Christ dude, let it go. Reading interesting things you may post is becoming annoying because now it seems every other post is you calling someone a liar.
What’s wrong with tazing in this instance? Or the guy who had a pipe? They had a tazer, but still shot him anyway.
The two officers didn’t communicate with the people in the neighborhood and they didn’t communicate with each other (why taze and shoot simultaneously?). They felt threatened enough to kill a man who had a stick, who was several feet away, and who was clearly trying to use sign language. Police must have some pretty shitty training in this country or they’re hiring some of the biggest chickenshits they can find (actually it is probably both). To not let it filter into your brain that several people are screaming “The man is deaf!”, you must be seriously shitting your pants over a chubby man with a stick.
My prediction: no charges filed.
I’m pretty sure it’s just him. Who else did I call a liar anytime recently, and where else aside from this thread (in which he lied about me) and the Pit thread I started about him?
You say that. But I think the better analysis is that your feelings have everything to do with it.
Meanwhile, has this thread discussed the cop in WV who got fired for failing to kill someone? A rather good example of the police needing to decide to just stop killing so many people, contra Shodan’s suggestion that this isn’t at all about the police just making the choice to just stop killing so many people.
Well, he is “someone”. Just let it go.
I might still mention it once in a while, unless he takes it back. But it’s okay. You can just let it go. It doesn’t have to bother you unless you let it.