Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
In The Zone

Another killing at the hands of the Police

Recommended Posts

Only two miles from Mjolnirs house.. unreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

Is this just a random thought or do you feel that's going on in this thread? Either way, incidents like this should enlighten all of us to what COULD happen. There are plenty of cases where the assumption from the outset is X because a _______ was involved". Hopefully we can stop this line of thinking...it becomes self fulfilling prophecy at some point. That's not justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

As opposed to 'the hands up don't shoot' BS? In several of the recent cases, the story started off completely skewed against the cops/citizen, and as the facts came out the story went from clear-cut homocide to a probable justified killing. It goes both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

:goodposting:

From the reporting I have seen in these cases, the presumption of guilt has shifted to anti-cop in the media. I really do not see the problem being a lack of skepticism of the police official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

You didn't have to just take the word of the officer. You could have easily looked at the forensic evidence as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops) feet...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Why should it have any bearing on that? Each case should be judged on the available evidence in the case and not some pre-concieved bias on who is right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Why should it have any bearing on that? Each case should be judged on the available evidence in the case and not some pre-concieved bias on who is right or wrong.

Cops lie to protect themselves and to protect other cops all the time. Most of them don't lie about murder, but almost all of them do lie about something.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Why should it have any bearing on that? Each case should be judged on the available evidence in the case and not some pre-concieved bias on who is right or wrong.

Are you suggesting that one "side" is guilty of a pre-conceived bias, but the other "side" is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Why should it have any bearing on that? Each case should be judged on the available evidence in the case and not some pre-concieved bias on who is right or wrong.

Are you suggesting that one "side" is guilty of a pre-conceived bias, but the other "side" is not?
You show pre-conceived bias by ignoring all the witnesses that stated Brown did charge the officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you turn the audio way up on the video, you can hear the cop saying "Don't stand so close to me". He was obviously nervous.

Sounded more like "Murder By Numbers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

When we were discussing the Ferguson shooting, some of us found it very implausible that the victim would run away from a police officer and then turn around and charge the officer in the face of bullets fired at him. There was no video in that case, and many people here simply took the word of the police officer. Does this incident at least make you reconsider that one?

Why should it have any bearing on that? Each case should be judged on the available evidence in the case and not some pre-concieved bias on who is right or wrong.

Are you suggesting that one "side" is guilty of a pre-conceived bias, but the other "side" is not?

I am not sure how you could possibly get that out of that statement. Of course there are people with biases on both sides of the issue. But it does seem the stronger bias in today's media is against the cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Still developing, but narrative feels familiar

Police exonerated after shooting man in back 6 times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Still developing, but narrative feels familiar

Police exonerated after shooting man in back 6 times

:lol:

How is a guy with a gun in any way similar? They even have a witness to the gun transaction that had just occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much at the officer's discretion when a cop has one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

But I've heard spokesmen for police unions make far more ridiculous arguments many times.

Edited by RedmondLonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much whenever they want when they have one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

Redmond doing the Lord's work in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

I guess it depends on the type of taser. If it's just hand held and you have to be in arm's length, I'd say no. They were 10-15 yards apart and the guy was actively running away. Then you have to explain how it's a deadly weapon etc. With the video, this is really a non-starter. Personally, I think the cop there with him (if he lied in his paperwork/account of the events by not mentioning the shooter moved the taser) should be brought up on charges as well. Will be interesting to watch this one unfold.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much at the officer's discretion when a cop has one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

But I've heard spokesmen for police unions make far more ridiculous arguments many times.

In and of itself a taser wouldn't be deadly, but it could allow a copy to be incapacitated and then killed with his own weapon. The cop was alone in a relatively isolated area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a real story until FOX starts putting pictures of this guy posing and embracing THUG LIFE to the fullest to counter balance all the pictures of him with his family and smiling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much at the officer's discretion when a cop has one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

But I've heard spokesmen for police unions make far more ridiculous arguments many times.

In and of itself a taser wouldn't be deadly, but it could allow a copy to be incapacitated and then killed with his own weapon. The cop was alone in a relatively isolated area.

His partner was nearby and there were sirens audible. And the guy was running away, even if he had the Taser (which he did not). Tasers aren't really effective at 30+ feet, especially in the hands of somebody who has neve handled one before.

Other than that, sweet tangent.

Edited by RedmondLonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

True dat.

I am wary of all of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

It is what actual libertarians oppose.

Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian and he may not be a libertarian.

As far as "leading libertarian", I don't know if such a critter exists in the eyes of the American media or in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

He came out and did this when Ferguson came out and I doubt his stance has changed.

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much at the officer's discretion when a cop has one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

But I've heard spokesmen for police unions make far more ridiculous arguments many times.

In and of itself a taser wouldn't be deadly, but it could allow a copy to be incapacitated and then killed with his own weapon. The cop was alone in a relatively isolated area.

His partner was nearby and there were sirens audible. And the guy was running away, even if he had the Taser (which he did not). Tasers aren't really effective at 30+ feet, especially in the hands of somebody who has neve handled one before.

Other than that, sweet tangent.

You're not following me. I'm responding to the point made earlier about the cop planting the taser, and why it is fortunate for everyone that the video captured this. I'm just pointing out that it's plausible that the investigation (absent the video and with the planted evidence) could have led to it being called a justifiable shooting. I don't really consider that a tangent. It's obviously the reason the cop planted the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurile already posted a link to an article about Rand changing his voting behavior in order to align with more mainstream conservative ideals. His dad never did so. Of course, Rand's course is much smarter if he wants to get elected so...:shrug:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

He came out and did this when Ferguson came out and I doubt his stance has changed.

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Thanks for posting that, very interesting. The juxtaposition of the video's release and Paul's Presidential declaration yesterday had me thinking about libertarianism as an ideology, and how a guy who supposedly has libertarian views should be appalled by such events. Turns out, he is, which I am surprised to learn and has me thinking about him in a different light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man the guy recording this has some balls. If that evidence planting cop had seen him filming (how did he not, btw) he may very well have turned his gun on that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much whenever they want when they have one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

Redmond doing the Lord's work in here.

Tasing the cop then take his gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the implication that because one incident happens one way, it somehow casts light on what happened in other cases. Cops face real danger on a daily basis and act appropriately in some cases. In some cases the circumstances are very grey where it is somewhat justifiable. And in other cases, the cop was completely out of line and should be charged with a crime. Nothing which happened here means anything to any of the other recent cases and to imply it does just shows ignorant bias.

:shrug: What incidents like this one in particular show - is how this was originally reported, sans video, and how the narrative shifted with the disclosure of the video. It certainly makes people think about how other incidents were reported, and wonder how many would have been reported differently if there had been video.

How did the narrative change exactly? The guy was shot in the back. That truth comes out with or without a video. It's undeniable forensic evidence that is easily and quickly obtained. For all of you insinuating this is a common occurrence, can you cite any cases where a policeman has shot someone in the back and been excused for it?

Cop reported the guy had his taser.....the taser that was laying at his (cops)...the taser he went back to get and threw down beside the body. There's a significant problem with a crime scene where a cop is claiming the perp has his taser and the taser is 10-15 yards away from a dead body. The last part is a typical FFA strawman, so I didn't feel the need to address.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. That does raise an interesting question. Would the cop have been excused if he shot the guy in the back while he was running away with his taser? I think you can make a good argument that the cop would have been excused on the grounds that he was fearful the guy would turn around and shoot him with his taser.

Another argument for body cameras. Please please make this happen.

It would be a neat trick for the police to claim a Taser is less than lethal force that can be used pretty much at the officer's discretion when a cop has one, but is a deadly weapon when somebody else has one.

But I've heard spokesmen for police unions make far more ridiculous arguments many times.

In and of itself a taser wouldn't be deadly, but it could allow a copy to be incapacitated and then killed with his own weapon. The cop was alone in a relatively isolated area.

His partner was nearby and there were sirens audible. And the guy was running away, even if he had the Taser (which he did not). Tasers aren't really effective at 30+ feet, especially in the hands of somebody who has neve handled one before.

Other than that, sweet tangent.

You're not following me. I'm responding to the point made earlier about the cop planting the taser, and why it is fortunate for everyone that the video captured this. I'm just pointing out that it's plausible that the investigation (absent the video and with the planted evidence) could have led to it being called a justifiable shooting. I don't really consider that a tangent. It's obviously the reason the cop planted the evidence.

Okay, fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the largest ironies of American politics that conservatives hate unions and bureaucratic government but love the police.

A uniformed officer of the state shooting an unarmed man to death in the back as he runs away seems to be the quintessential example of what libertarians claim to oppose.

I haven't heard Rand Paul or any other leading libertarian step forward to talk about this incident, though.

It is what actual libertarians oppose.

Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian and he may not be a libertarian.

As far as "leading libertarian", I don't know if such a critter exists in the eyes of the American media or in politics.

Rand Paul is most certainly NOT a libertarian.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought tasers were single shot devices. I read that the cop had already used the taser against this guy before he started running. Wouldn't the fact that it was already used and empty have prevented the cop from fearing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought tasers were single shot devices. I read that the cop had already used the taser against this guy before he started running. Wouldn't the fact that it was already used and empty have prevented the cop from fearing it?

They are one shot devices as far as the probes go. If the cartridge remains in the device, which it does unless manually removed, the taser can still be used for a drive stun, which is to say that if you are close enough to a target to touch it with the device itself, not the fired probes, that it can still render a debilating shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

1. What caused the cop to discharge his taser? Because the video shows what looks like the cord of a discharged taser from the onset of the video. You can see the cord uncoiled, but it didn't appear to have struck anyone. The man wouldn't be able to run away if he was struck, would he?
2. Why did the man run away from the cop? And did the cop say anything to the man prior to the video like (back off, stay away or even No!) Ultimately this probably doesn't happen if the man does what the cop says - but what does the cop say? What does the man say to the cop, if anything? We don't even know that.
3. Why shoot the man if he was clearly running away without any visible weapon, reducing any previous fear in each step that he was further away? This is the big question that will or won't ultimately seal the officer's fate.
4. This definitely does not look good for the cop. I'm sure we'll find out more details of this cop's background as a police officer. He appeared to be very nervous during and after the incident.
5. I agree that this is a separate event altogether from other incidents with similar back stories (white cop, black suspect). You can't correlate this with what happenend in other cases.
6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

Did you see the video from a couple of months ago where a white cop in south carolina pulled over a black guy and asked him to get his drivers license, and when the black guy reached in his car for his wallet, the police officer, clearly terrified, shoots the guy a number of times?

1. I don't necessarly think that the white cop is "racist." I don't know anything about him, but I have no evidence that he is.

2. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a white guy, dressed the exact same way, that he pulls over, and the white guy behaves the exact same way, the police officer doesn't get frightened and shoot.

I can't say what the "root" of the issue is, but I believe it to my core. And that's why it matters what the races are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

Did you see the video from a couple of months ago where a white cop in south carolina pulled over a black guy and asked him to get his drivers license, and when the black guy reached in his car for his wallet, the police officer, clearly terrified, shoots the guy a number of times?

1. I don't necessarly think that the white cop is "racist." I don't know anything about him, but I have no evidence that he is.

2. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a white guy, dressed the exact same way, that he pulls over, and the white guy behaves the exact same way, the police officer doesn't get frightened and shoot.

I can't say what the "root" of the issue is, but I believe it to my core. And that's why it matters what the races are here.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

Did you see the video from a couple of months ago where a white cop in south carolina pulled over a black guy and asked him to get his drivers license, and when the black guy reached in his car for his wallet, the police officer, clearly terrified, shoots the guy a number of times?

1. I don't necessarly think that the white cop is "racist." I don't know anything about him, but I have no evidence that he is.

2. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a white guy, dressed the exact same way, that he pulls over, and the white guy behaves the exact same way, the police officer doesn't get frightened and shoot.

I can't say what the "root" of the issue is, but I believe it to my core. And that's why it matters what the races are here.

:goodposting:

To be fair don't black people commit more gun crimes than others....I apologize if this is not correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

1. What caused the cop to discharge his taser? Because the video shows what looks like the cord of a discharged taser from the onset of the video. You can see the cord uncoiled, but it didn't appear to have struck anyone. The man wouldn't be able to run away if he was struck, would he?
2. Why did the man run away from the cop? And did the cop say anything to the man prior to the video like (back off, stay away or even No!) Ultimately this probably doesn't happen if the man does what the cop says - but what does the cop say? What does the man say to the cop, if anything? We don't even know that.
3. Why shoot the man if he was clearly running away without any visible weapon, reducing any previous fear in each step that he was further away? This is the big question that will or won't ultimately seal the officer's fate.
4. This definitely does not look good for the cop. I'm sure we'll find out more details of this cop's background as a police officer. He appeared to be very nervous during and after the incident.
5. I agree that this is a separate event altogether from other incidents with similar back stories (white cop, black suspect). You can't correlate this with what happenend in other cases.
6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

I appreciate, especially, your item #6.

I've often said that the race issue is overplayed to distract people from the real issue: cops can literally get away with murder, and do in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race probably matters in this situation, but inappropriate use of force by police isn't always racially charged. And it has nothing to do with the absence of accountability. The police's own internal investigations, prosecutors' offices and even the judicial system itself seem to all be heavily reliant on the presumption that EVERY police shooting is justified. Only the presence of completely overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes any difference. And even then, it doesn't always seem to.

The fact is, in many places in this country the police can get a warrant to search your home on flimsy evidence (thanks "War on Drugs"), execute that warrant without knocking in the middle of the night and shoot you dead if your surprised reaction makes them even slightly nervous. And your death will be blessed as appropriate by everybody whose opinion matters.

Link

Another Link

And Another

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions and comments about this... trying to be objective here. We don't know all of the details.

6. We should view this as cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent man, not white cop shoots and kills unarmed, non-violent black man.

Did you see the video from a couple of months ago where a white cop in south carolina pulled over a black guy and asked him to get his drivers license, and when the black guy reached in his car for his wallet, the police officer, clearly terrified, shoots the guy a number of times?

1. I don't necessarly think that the white cop is "racist." I don't know anything about him, but I have no evidence that he is.

2. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a white guy, dressed the exact same way, that he pulls over, and the white guy behaves the exact same way, the police officer doesn't get frightened and shoot.

I can't say what the "root" of the issue is, but I believe it to my core. And that's why it matters what the races are here.

So it's impossible for you to look at any racial interaction with police objectively? That seems so odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race probably matters in this situation, but inappropriate use of force by police isn't always racially charged. And it has nothing to do with the absence of accountability. The police's own internal investigations, prosecutors' offices and even the judicial system itself seem to all be heavily reliant on the presumption that EVERY police shooting is justified. Only the presence of completely overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes any difference. And even then, it doesn't always seem to.

The fact is, in many places in this country the police can get a warrant to search your home on flimsy evidence (thanks "War on Drugs"), execute that warrant without knocking in the middle of the night and shoot you dead if your surprised reaction makes them even slightly nervous. And your death will be blessed as appropriate by everybody whose opinion matters.

Link

Another Link

And Another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you turn the audio way up on the video, you can hear the cop saying "Don't stand so close to me". He was obviously nervous.

Bull####. If he was that nervous, he would have called in an SOS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.