I see I am not the only one to recognize how badly you were losing the debate.
As we see from the latest tizzy from the lunatic attacking a person holding his child, unprovoked, video or the lack of it makes no difference (as law, evidence, or the DA’s investigation make no difference to the mindlessly knee-jerking Cheesesteak and his ilk). What they think should be done is to condemn the police, automatically and no matter what.
Regards,
Shodan
I think that officers who are equipped with cameras should use those cameras, as a condition of keeping their jobs.
Young black men in this country are killed by the police so often that “killed by police” shows up on their “leading cause of death” statistics. here
According to that study, 1 in 1000 black men in this country can expect to be killed by police in their lifetime.
This is not a bash the police statistic, our whole structure of law enforcement, incarceration and, widespread gun ownership, has created a toxic environment where death is normalized and excused. Where shooting 3 people is a justified response to getting knocked over, and as a person who recently served on a grand jury, I don’t even know that I’d have indicted him either.
However, I recognize that something is deeply wrong here, we should stop acting like these deaths are just business as usual, and start expecting more from ourselves.
I didn’t ask. He was vexed enough I offered sympathy rather than probe an open wound. Note that, unlike the n----- punk in a hoodie stereotype so popular with conservatives – including on this board – this was a middle-class man with a middle-class job on his way to work about seven in the morning. His only action prompting a pull-over was DWB.
Yes, it’s just an anecdote. Doubtless the conservatives will have countless anecdotes of their own of being threatened by NPIAHes.
I totally agree with this. But in this particular case, that wasn’t the policy. So again, in this case, what relevance is the fact that the cameras weren’t on? What actions should have been done differently based on the fact that the cameras weren’t on?
I think that at the very least, when cameras are available but were not on, the standard of believing officers over other witnesses or even suspects needs to be relaxed, if not abandoned.
So the standard in California is that you are allowed to use deadly force in a fight with someone even if they don’t have a weapon? Sounds like it is New Texas.
What the fuck! That miserable piece of shit fired off 10 rounds, murdered one and critically wounded two over a dad pulling his son AWAY from him? How is that ruled defense? :mad:
The relevance is that the person who shot and killed the other person was equipped with a device designed specifically to provide evidence in the case of an event like a shooting, and chose to not use it.
While there may be no legal recourse to take due to him making this choice, do you believe this choice is irrelevant to the investigation?
As for actions, post event, there’s nothing to be done. And there won’t be anything to be done the next time, or the next time, or the next time after that.
I’m not sure where this is going. It seems to me that this argument is just becoming:
He didn’t turn the cameras on!!
Yeah, but what do you think should have happened knowing this information?
He didn’t turn the cameras on!!
Yeah, who should have done anything different based on the fact that he didn’t turn the cameras on?
He didn’t turn the cameras on!!
I completely agree that the policy should be changed to require cameras to be on under penalty of being fired.
“NPIAHes”?
I’m not sure where this is going either. What is it you think I can possibly say to answer this? I already said
So, what do I think should have happened knowing this information and who should have done something different? It’s nothing and nobody. The die has been cast and it can’t be uncast.
The thing that should have been different should have been done long before this event. But it wasn’t, because a large number of people are perfectly happy with these events happening exactly as they happen now, and have been happening for decades. The things that need to be done are still not being done because a large number of people don’t care about how many young black men are killed by police. They believe the killings are justified, that the police are forced to kill, correct to kill, and that we don’t need to change anything to reduce these deaths.
The fact that West was black is causing you to miss the reason why large numbers of people don’t care very much about this.
It is not the case that we don’t care because West was black. The reason we don’t care is because the cop stopped someone driving a bike without a headlight at 1:30am, who then ran away and pulled a gun when the cop caught up to him. We would not care any more if West were white - it forms no basis for concern what his race was.
We don’t care if anyone, white/black/Hispanic/Asian/Other, gets stopped by the police driving a bike at 1:30am with no headlight in an area where there has been a lot of vehicle break-ins. Because we like and support the law against riding your bike at 1:30am with no headlight - it is something we want to be against the law. This is for multiple reasons.
[ol][li]Driving your bike at 1:30am with no headlight presents a danger to public safety. This is the case whether the driver is white/black/Hispanic/Asian/Other. [/li][li]Sometimes, the person driving the bike at 1:30am with no headlight in an area with a lot of vehicle break-ins, whether white/black/Hispanic/Asian/Other, turns out to be a felon in possession of a gun, who has fled the scene of a stolen car, who then tries to shoot a police officer.[/ol][/li]
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. The rest of us say -
[ul][li]The cops shot somebody who was riding a stolen bike at 1:30am in an area with a lot of vehicle break-ins and other “quality of life” crimes, and when the cop tried to stop him he ran away, couldn’t be arrested with less-lethal means like a Tazer, and then pulled a gun and tried to kill the officer.[/ul][/li]You say -
[ul][li]The cops shot somebody who was riding a stolen bike at 1:30am in an area with a lot of vehicle break-ins and other “quality of life” crimes, and when the cop tried to stop him he ran away, couldn’t be arrested with less-lethal means like a Tazer, and then pulled a gun and tried to kill the officer.[/li]
And he was black.[/ul]That last sentence is the part we don’t care about.
Regards,
Shodan
And the first part is something you made up, you lying sack of shit covered in a white bedsheet.
I would disagree with “tried to kill the officer” but the rest is pretty much right from the DA’s report.
It was in the post. N----- Punk in a Hoodie. NPIAHs (plural) looked funny to me but I guess the extra ‘e’ was confusing.
Were they claims that Cheesesteak made?
I think race is such a significant contributing factor that anyone who goes around looking to cherry pick examples of the few times race wasn’t a factor need to have their motives questioned.
Add to that the fact that you expressed a tolerance for a type of police behavior that has been used to fuck with non-white people for more years than I have been alive and I felt compelled to respond.
[quote=“Shodan, post:15234, topic:700942”]
Because we like and support the law against riding your bike at 1:30am with no headlight - it is something we want to be against the law. This is for multiple reasons.
[ol][li]Driving your bike at 1:30am with no headlight presents a danger to public safety. This is the case whether the driver is white/black/Hispanic/Asian/Other. [/li][li]Sometimes, the person driving the bike at 1:30am with no headlight in an area with a lot of vehicle break-ins, whether white/black/Hispanic/Asian/Other, turns out to be a felon in possession of a gun, who has fled the scene of a stolen car, who then tries to shoot a police officer.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
#1 is complete nonsense. You should be embarrassed to have typed it under your name. Of course, given the number of embarrassing things typed under your name it’s understandable that you don’t.
#2 is the very definition of a fishing expedition. Our rights as Americans protect us from being stopped and searched because “sometimes people commit crimes, and since you’re a person, I should search you to see if you committed a crime”.
The reason using #1 to justify #2 is bullshit is that the reasoning is used to justify stopping and searching minorities when most whites don’t get stopped for the same thing.
Well, it’s good that we can find some common ground.
I didn’t look around at all, nor do any cherry picking. I related a story about a close friend. I readily admitted that I believe that race is SOMETIMES, perhaps OFTEN a factor. I just don’t think it is ALWAYS a factor. How is that hard to understand? I think many police are willing to overstep their authority with a lot of people they deal with, black, brown, white or any other shade. I think the racial angle is overblown in this thread, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it is indeed a factor in many instances.
When have I ever expressed a tolerance for abusive police behavior? Point that out to me. You either have me confused with someone else, or you are completely mistaken.