Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
In The Zone

Another killing at the hands of the Police

Recommended Posts

Now if only our politicians wore body cams we might get some honesty there.

And how about throwing in their sponsors on the suits(or dresses)they wear like Nascar drivers do?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if only our politicians wore body cams we might get some honesty there.

And how about throwing in their sponsors on the suits(or dresses)they wear like Nascar drivers do?

This fatal shooting brought to you by Godaddy.com

Edited by Hang 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Weren't they wrestling at some point before the shooting? Maybe Scott really did grab at it and his prints were on the taser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Weren't they wrestling at some point before the shooting? Maybe Scott really did grab at it and his prints were on the taser.

Even if Scott had stolen the taser, it wouldn't have justified 8 bullets in the back. Police are out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Weren't they wrestling at some point before the shooting? Maybe Scott really did grab at it and his prints were on the taser.

Even if Scott had stolen the taser, it wouldn't have justified 8 bullets in the back. Police are out of control.

Never said that it did. Was just considering why the cop figured planting the taser was a viable self-defense strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation about this would be even more gripping had the officer thrown down a handgun, instead of having interfered with the integrity of the crime scene by moving the location of the tazer.

The act of moving the tazer also calls into question the Officer's understanding of the law. I mean it would have been a fairly poor attempt at a defense to say the Officer was in fear for his safety from a fat man, 35 some feet away, heading in the other direction, holding a tazer whose cartridge had already been discharged, and whose range is less than that distance. I guess maybe he could have tried to make some argument that the suspect was moving towards his unsuspecting partner while wielding the generally non-deadly weapon, but that maybe it could have been used to disarm the partner, but even that would be pretty damn silly as the correct action would have been to radio the partner of the circumstances and to have warned the deceased to have dropped the device. In addition to the criminal, this Officer had a whole lot of stupid going on. Of course there has always been a high correlation between criminality and stupidity, at least for the criminals we become well aware of.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?

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?

In what way? One was hit in the back, the other was in the front? Reading comprehension issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Weren't they wrestling at some point before the shooting? Maybe Scott really did grab at it and his prints were on the taser.

Even if Scott had stolen the taser, it wouldn't have justified 8 bullets in the back. Police are out of control.

All of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

Except that doesn't, at all, fit the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

Perhaps a cross over from his list of people whose chutes he would pack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

Perhaps a cross over from his list of people whose chutes he would pack?

He either slept with his wife or its the crack -back block thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video doesn't show Walter Scott's eyes. He looked like some sort of demon.

/notguilty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

Perhaps a cross over from his list of people whose chutes he would pack?

He either slept with his wife or its the crack -back block thing.

See, this is where pronouns can be tricky. We could have the meaning be that Hines slept with Uwe's wife or the other way around. I can't see being mad about the latter, but who knows what can anger a fellow.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott did owe back child support — and some have speculated that's why he ran — but he also had minor traffic infractions on his record. South Carolina's Post and Courier reported that Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failure to appear for court hearings and child support. The paper also said his first arrest was in 1987 for assault and battery, but that could not immediately be confirmed by NBC News.

The child support thing is relevant in that it informs us as to why he may have ran. That's it. And that has nothing to do with the culpability of the police officer for murdering him.

It is one way to get out of paying back/future child support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

You seem to be struggling here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

Perhaps a cross over from his list of people whose chutes he would pack?

He either slept with his wife or its the crack -back block thing.

See, this is where pronouns can be tricky. We could have the meaning be that Hines slept with Uwe's wife or the other way around. I can't see being mad about the latter, but who knows what can anger a fellow.

Maybe Hines has a large schlong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only shot an unarmed man in the back, but also appeared to tamper with the crime scene by planting a taser on the guy.

Yep. Murder. Does not need to have a badge. Lock him up.

Don't know if it was posted, but here's a gif of the officer allegedly planting the taser.

That's chilling.

I wonder if the fact that the victim's fingerprints on the taser would've posed a problem for this cover story. Either the cop didn't think about it, or maybe he knew it wouldn't even be tested for prints as his story would've be thoroughly checked out, which is also chilling.

Weren't they wrestling at some point before the shooting? Maybe Scott really did grab at it and his prints were on the taser.

Even if Scott had stolen the taser, it wouldn't have justified 8 bullets in the back. THIS Police officer was out of control.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN had an interview with the shooter of the video. Said there was a scuffle on the ground for a short period and that it looked like the cop had everything under control. They stood up and the guy took off running. Never saw the guy with a taser etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

But there ARE strong similarities, at least for those of us who believe Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were wrongfully murdered. IMO, the only significant difference between this incident and those two incidents is that this one was videotaped. No way I can prove that of course. But it's remarkable how many people are saying, "Oh this ones totally different". It's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy could have been a serial killer or the most despicable criminal on the planet and still there is technically no justification for ever shooting someone in the back. I cared that Trayvon had a criminal history as he was fighting with someone and there was a possibility of justification for the shooting. Same for Ferguson. This is cold blooded murder and has no similarity to the other cases.

I think this is going to be the tipping point in this whole cop/vs black saga. It still is absolutely baffling to me what kind of mindset the cop could have had? HTF does he not know he is screwed after shooting an unarmed person in the back numerous times as they are running away? Obviously his life wasn't being threatened. This guy is borderline psychotic like Hernandez IMO not to mention incredibly stupid.

People I would shoot in the back:

Hitler

Genghis Kahn

Jeffrey Dahmer

Osama Bin Laden

Charles Manson

Ed Gein

People that look like Ed Gein

Mengele

Stalin

Mao

Hines Ward

Idi Amin

Pol Pot

Tamerlane

Ted Bundy

Balky from Perfect Strangers

The North Korean Kims (all of em!)

Ivan Drago

That Cleveland dude that holed up the women

Mr. Bean

Quick Draw McGraw

Joe KONY

King Leopold II

:lmao: Hines Ward.....can I ask why.

That was the one that caught my eye too.

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?

In what way? One was hit in the back, the other was in the front? Reading comprehension issues?
in the way that when white police officers shoot unarmed black men in this country, it might be wise to take the cop's explanation with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.

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?
In what way? One was hit in the back, the other was in the front? Reading comprehension issues?
in the way that when white police officers shoot unarmed black men in this country, it might be wise to take the cop's explanation with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.

It might be wise to accept there were witnesses that saw Brown walking towards the cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation about this would be even more gripping had the officer thrown down a handgun, instead of having interfered with the integrity of the crime scene by moving the location of the tazer.

The act of moving the tazer also calls into question the Officer's understanding of the law. I mean it would have been a fairly poor attempt at a defense to say the Officer was in fear for his safety from a fat man, 35 some feet away, heading in the other direction, holding a tazer whose cartridge had already been discharged, and whose range is less than that distance. I guess maybe he could have tried to make some argument that the suspect was moving towards his unsuspecting partner while wielding the generally non-deadly weapon, but that maybe it could have been used to disarm the partner, but even that would be pretty damn silly as the correct action would have been to radio the partner of the circumstances and to have warned the deceased to have dropped the device. In addition to the criminal, this Officer had a whole lot of stupid going on. Of course there has always been a high correlation between criminality and stupidity, at least for the criminals we become well aware of.

yes it does seem awful dumb doesn't it?

But I found George Zimmerman's and Wilson's stories to be pretty dumb and implausible as well, yet there were lots of people willing to accept their explanations at face value. Without the video, I'm 99.99% sure this guy would've gotten away with it too, whatever the evidence.

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?
In what way? One was hit in the back, the other was in the front? Reading comprehension issues?
in the way that when white police officers shoot unarmed black men in this country, it might be wise to take the cop's explanation with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.

It might be wise to accept there were witnesses that saw Brown walking towards the cop.

And forensic evidence, autopsies, but pish posh......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this situation, if there was no video, both the autopsy and forensics would somehow end up justifying the shooting I would predict. And perhaps there would be "witnesses" willing to back up the cop's story. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this situation, if there was no video, both the autopsy and forensics would somehow end up justifying the shooting I would predict. And perhaps there would be "witnesses" willing to back up the cop's story. Who knows?

Just stop and take this to your thread. How is an autopsy and forensics going to disprove he was shot in the back 8 times?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this situation, if there was no video, both the autopsy and forensics would somehow end up justifying the shooting I would predict. And perhaps there would be "witnesses" willing to back up the cop's story. Who knows?

Just stop and take this to your thread. How is an autopsy and forensics going to disprove he was shot in the back 8 times?

Tim thinks what Tim thinks. Nobody but Tim is going to change Tim's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this situation, if there was no video, both the autopsy and forensics would somehow end up justifying the shooting I would predict. And perhaps there would be "witnesses" willing to back up the cop's story. Who knows?

Just stop and take this to your thread. How is an autopsy and forensics going to disprove he was shot in the back 8 times?
i have no idea. I believe that somehow it would though. Is it your contention that given the facts of this case, this police officer would be convicted without this video? Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this situation, if there was no video, both the autopsy and forensics would somehow end up justifying the shooting I would predict. And perhaps there would be "witnesses" willing to back up the cop's story. Who knows?

Just stop and take this to your thread. How is an autopsy and forensics going to disprove he was shot in the back 8 times?
i have no idea. I believe that somehow it would though.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

I believe you mean to say show you an example of a white cop being convicted for UNLAWFULLY shooting an unarmed black man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

Make up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

I'm leaning the opposite way. This guy is up #### creek and has no paddle. I say the jury will make an example out of this guy because that taser video is damning. It would take an OJ army of attorneys to save this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

I believe you mean to say show you an example of a white cop being convicted for UNLAWFULLY shooting an unarmed black man.
if it's lawful, then they're not convicted. So that's a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.
I'm leaning the opposite way. This guy is up #### creek and has no paddle. I say the jury will make an example out of this guy because that taser video is damning. It would take an OJ army of attorneys to save this guy.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

Make up your mind.

not enough of a distinction to matter frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

I would guess in most cased of of victims who were shown to be shot in the back at a significant distance, the shooter end up in jail. I am sure there are a few exceptions, but not many people on either side excuse shooting a fleeing victim in the back regardless of your bias which says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

I'm leaning the opposite way. This guy is up #### creek and has no paddle. I say the jury will make an example out of this guy because that taser video is damning. It would take an OJ army of attorneys to save this guy.
absolutely. But I think it's even more than that. Nobody wants to defend this guy because nobody wants to admit that these sorts of incidents are part of a systemic problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't trolling. I'm not expressing anything here that isn't being said all over TV and elsewhere. Without the video, this guy gets off despite the evidence, because they ALWAYS get off.

And if you disagree with this, please provide an example in recent years of a white cop convicted of shooting an unarmed black man. It's extremely rare.

I would guess in most cased of of victims who were shown to be shot in the back at a significant distance, the shooter end up in jail. I am sure there are a few exceptions, but not many people on either side excuse shooting a fleeing victim in the back regardless of your bias which says otherwise.

Examples?

If you'd like, I can show you some statistics on how many cop shootings are even prosecuted. But I'm guessing you know that figure already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop is going to claim that he thought the guy took his taser, and the jury will believe him, and he will be found not guilty.

Is this another hypothetical scenario had the video not existed?
The officer will tailor his story to fit the video -- he'll claim that the suspect took his taser, that he thought the suspect still had the taser as the suspect ran away, and that he was afraid that the suspect was about to shoot him with the taser. The jury will give him the benefit of the doubt and he'll be found not guilty.

I'm leaning the opposite way. This guy is up #### creek and has no paddle. I say the jury will make an example out of this guy because that taser video is damning. It would take an OJ army of attorneys to save this guy.
absolutely. But I think it's even more than that. Nobody wants to defend this guy because nobody wants to admit that these sorts of incidents are part of a systemic problem.

Yeah, he's probably got that problem too. Usually someone will step up and make a bigger name for themselves (Mark O'Mara) but this doesn't look like a case that someone would want to tackle.

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.