Doug B

Members
  • Content count

    27,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

415 Excellent

About Doug B

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New Orleans Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

14,959 profile views
  1. As a bona fide fat person, this isn't far from the truth. It is quintessentially human to try to sublimate negative emotions. Everyone thinks first of drugs and booze. Some people act out externally, in a wide gamut of both constructive and destructive ways. Others still find solace in food.
  2. Another great question.
  3. Ah, so in a sense ... TWO officers WERE involved. In the phone video I saw, there was an officer hiding behind a utility pole to the filmer's right -- the cameraman pans over to him briefly. I had previously assumed THAT officer was the shooter. That opens up the possibility that the utility-pole cop was the "panicker" and the behind-the-car cop was essentially doing his job on horribly bad info. But, as pointed out by someone last page ... no checking the scope to ascertain a weapon was truly present? Guess not.
  4. Is this distance established? Thought I read it was only 40 feet.
  5. Agreed -- I have my own speculation, posted upthread.
  6. LarryAllen'sJockstrap merely asked for them to "man up and admit when mistakes are made". "Major eff up" = "mistake". I thought it was an admission of fault -- it's not like the union chief said "no, the officer did not shoot that man." Are you looking instead for admission of intent or admission of malice?
  7. I think in this case, the eff-up was admitted plainly -- the union chief said that the officer was aiming at the autistic guy (the sitting-up toy-truck guy) and missed. The caretaker (guy on ground with hands up) was never the target.
  8. Stuff like this is why I believe the officer was in some kind of fugue -- I'd go so far as to speculate he wasn't capable of processing input from the environment around him. That may be taking it too far, however, because if that were true ... the officer would have no culpability. At the union chief's press conference linked upthread, he said it was only one shooter (the 30-year old Hispanic officer).
  9. Didn't even consider this as a possibility. Damn, what unfortunate timing.
  10. I think the office actually shut down mentally and was working off of pure instinct and fear. I believe the officer comprehended nothing the behavior tech said, and I believe the officer was mentally unable to process any visuals (i.e. he was totally convinced the toy truck was a handgun, he couldn't make out that the sitting autistic guy was not acting like a neuro-normal person, etc.). The officer might have been thinking "ambush" in the back of his mind, and that may have colored his experience ("Nothing is as it seems ... they want me to approach out in the open ... aaaahhh!!!!! [fight-or-flight reptile brain kicks in]). Yep -- all that is low-information speculation. IMHO, it fits the facts as I understand them -- I don't think it was a "Black person is an extra threat!" shooting, nor a "Respect my authority!" shooting. It was panic. Pure panic and total loss of composure. Sounds like I'm giving the officer a total pass, but I am not. On the contrary, while his performance in the moment may be explicable, it was far from professional and IMHO fell well short of the standard. Pretty amazed that the shooter was a decorated SWAT veteran. Have a strong feeling, since the shooting victim will recover before long, that the officer will either not get charged or will get charged lightly ("discharge of firearm" or something).
  11. Wait -- the version being seen all over ... that's NOT edited? If that's the way it was shot ... very odd. Unless the police told him to stop filming, he complied, then thought better of it and resumed filming.
  12. I saw this when you first posted it. It's eminently reasonable, however: it requires a potentially ambiguous judgment call to be made. "Threatened by lethal force" is probably not the bright-line threshold it appears to be.
  13. Too early to say that. Guessing based on a generality, since this stuff differs place to place ... but a lot of police unions have bargained the right for an officer to not be charged, arrested, etc. until after an investigation is completed. Yes, this would be totally different for a civilian suspect.
  14. I assumed, with no real doubt at all, that the full video contains the shooting ... just that the full video hasn't been made public and all we're seeing are obviously edited versions.
  15. Not necessarily -- there are theories that life as we know it (really, the whole observable universe) is fundamentally no more than a certain pattern of information organization. IOW, there's no "reality" separate from "simulation".