wannabe rapper writing anti-police lyrics looking for street cred.
The cite you link to says that the prosecutor has alleged that he was intentionally moving side-to-side to strike people. The prosecutor can allege that a ham sandwich, with premeditation and malice aforethought, choked a man to death.
ETA: afterthought to aforethought
Huh? What’s “immature” about wanting to work as an entertainer, irrespective of age? There are plenty of successful rappers who didn’t attain success until their 30s.
I mean, FFS, with all the horrible behavior that this guy can rightly be anathematized for (including, allegedly, a whole bunch of recent vehicular homicide), why decide to single out his music-career aspirations for your criticism? That just comes across as a racist-sounding sneer at rap music and rappers.
The dating site biography writes itself.
“I enjoy long walks on the b*tch…”
I’ve been skeptical that this guy was fleeing and just had to mow down almost 50 people.
Look at his long rap sheet. He knows getting arrested isn’t a big deal. He’s already made bail for domestic assault twice this year. He would have been back home within a week.
Eventually he would get some prison time. But he’s been there before.
To me, it was the whole combination of factors.
Yeah, I would love to get some glimmer of what he was thinking. I suppose that it’d be some pedestrian entitled bullshit though. He doesn’t strike me as the sort of guy who’s ever thought twice.
Given the context, awkward…
Don’t get me wrong but as I recall there were some who said we should “defund” the police, which meant redirecting some of the funds to counseling or whatever resources might defuse situations rather than turn them into confrontations. It seems like this situation would fall under “fail” but I wonder what others think.
The guy is a domestic abuser, like in many other such incidents. He clearly has an anger problem. So it is possible that (mandatory) mental health care interventions could have prevented this long before it got to this point.
These situations always involve someone who is highly stressed and unable to manage that stress. It always involves people lashing out in anger. Heck, they tend to involve domestic violence incidents. The way to deal with this stuff is to try and stop it before it gets to this point. Police tend to only come in after the damage has been done, when it’s too late to anything but pick up the pieces.
This guy who I follow suggests that, since it doesn’t fit the currently preferred political narratives, it will fall out of the news, rather than being an impetus for change. He presents all this in a pretty non-political way, IMHO—he completely avoids the
“defund the police” framing, for instance.
I also like Beau of the Fifth Column. He seems like a very down-to-earth person.
From the headline posted just a few posts above:
Before I read the article, lemme guess: Judge sets bail a little higher this time.
ETA: Okay, yeah. From the article, a bit of diplomatic talk (bold added):
Domestic abusers very rarely have “an anger problem” in the sense that most people would use that term. There’s a ton of literature about how sending abusers to “anger management” tends to make things worse. Abusers can typically control their anger just fine, and use controlled anger as one of their tools of coercive control of an intimate partner.
It sounds more to me like this guy is a psychopath. Maybe he was initially fleeing, perhaps even trying to avoid people at first (I haven’t watched, nor am I planning to watch, any of the video) but then, once the way was completely blocked, he was just focused on going where he wanted to go.
Fits the domestic abuse angle as well. Other people are objects to them.
I hate hearing the word “gentleman” (or “lady” for that matter) used to describe a violent criminal.
We could have a discussion about how the noble motivations of bail reform fail when it hits reality but that’s a different thread.
I’ve had to call criminals sir and ma’am for the last 20 something years. You get used to it.
Moderating:
This is a breaking news thread. No politics. Take it to another thread.
This is not the first note to remind folks of this. No warning, but it was really close.
Sorry, withdrawn.
A person conducting a proceeding has to choose SOME term to describe the people before them, and could expect criticism from one direction or another depending on just about any term chosen. I would suspect “gentleman” was used as a default, to ward off any potential criticism that the person was not being afforded sufficient respect. The decision-maker was also likely intending to avoid revealing any personal opinion WRT to person, their character, and/or the charges.
Hell, I had a middle aged female atty rake me over the coals for referring to her as “Ma’am.” Yeah, I generally would say “counsel” or “Mr/Ms X.” But sometimes I slip up and had thought ma’am/sir benign terms of respect. Whereas all I cared to do was say, “Hey you.” At least I didn’t call this particular atty what I actually think of her! 