Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Another killing at the hands of the Police


Recommended Posts

Did you see the car cam footage posted above? If one can get to an individual as dangerous as the boston bomber from that video, I'd like to really understand their thinking. It's pretty clear (to me) that the guy in the car is scared. You can tell by the way he's fumbling through his answers about the car. If a defense attorney can get a jury to believe that this guy was getting ready to go on a rampage and be a sever threat to society off that footage, he/she is a miracle worker at picking a jury and a fantastic salesman.

I was using a hypothetical to establish a baseline point, which is that "If a person is a danger to society, the Police can shoot to kill if he is escaping."

"Outrageous" comparisons (i.e., hypotheticals), are useful in that they help clarify a general rule. We then need to look at the facts of the situation through the lens of the rule.

So. I wasn't comparing the two in substance, but in type: An unarmed person fleeing. If it is ok for the police to shoot-to-kill in one set of facts, let's look at the "why" (i.e., justification), and then comparison to another set of facts.

Anyway, I was really just trying to determine how he would argue he was innocent. If a grand jury can refuse to even indict the police for the Eric Garner death, I can see a jury acquiting.

But I was really just asking the point to people who know criminal law: "Is it true that if the Police think someone is a serious danger to society, they can shoot the unarmed fleeing person?" If so, then I could see the Officer making this argument.

I believe it's true that one can use deadly force in cases where the individual fleeing is considered a serious danger to society. I just don't know how that case would be made (even in a poor attempt) in this case. I'm not saying they wouldn't try, but I have to think they'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Members 16,204 31,897 posts Gender:Not Telling Report post Posted 4 minutes ago I have been contacted by several posters for my thoughts.  I struggled with coming back ev

The entire written statement from General Mattis should be required reading:

Spent the day at the DC marches yesterday. It was mostly peaceful, respectful. Angry at times, but definitely peaceful. We had a hiccup at one point after a group gathered at the Lincoln for some spee

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

What does this have to do with the officer shooting him in the back?
Not a thing. But overall it helps to fill in a few blanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

There was NO bench warrant out for his arrest, though he WAS $7500 behind in payments.
NBC news just reported that there was a bench warrant.

He had them in the past, but the last report I saw was there were no active bench warrants against him. The one from 2013 had been removed since he was making payments :oldunsure: This just have been incorrect :shrug:

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

There was NO bench warrant out for his arrest, though he WAS $7500 behind in payments.
NBC news just reported that there was a bench warrant.

There are conflicting reports on that, several sources say there was no warrant:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/there-was-no-arrest-warrant-for-walter-scott/

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

What does this have to do with the officer shooting him in the back?

just another piece of the puzzle of why a jury will never find that cop guilty of murder

Edited by Fennis
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the tazer. I've always assumed that if you get tazed, that puts you out for a while, several minutes. It's supposed to be quite painful and quite debilitating. You should not be able to get up an run away seconds later.

Is this a wrong assumption?

Yes.
then please educate me. Tia

I don't know if you are actually prepared to be educated on the subject matter, and in fact I would suspect not based upon your stated preconception, so let me address that first.

Most all of us have seen several tasering videos, from the famous "Don't Tase me Bro" video, right on through dozens of others. In none of those does the person pass out, or even do more than drop to the ground. In many of the videos the subject of the tasering, though losing much muscle control, and obviously suffering pain during the tasering, maintains at least sufficient control to yell back at the officers that the person is in pain and that the officers are of questionable parentage. I find it difficult to believe that you have not seen dozens of examples, with none of them supporting your stated belief which makes me wonder about your statement. If you have never seen a video of this I apologize, but given the frequency with which you are on the board, and the frequency of the subject matter be raised here I tend to doubt you have no exposure to the subject.

That said I also feel I need to state that I have gone through the training available from Taser International, and I have been tased myself. What happens, aside from those with severe preexisting conditions present in a miniscule percentage of cases not worth discussing here on the general or common effect, is that the electrical overload of the neural pathways causes the large voluntary muscles to seize. This is true regardless of whether one is a tough guy. This is a consistent physiological reaction, though macho types have tried to create a myth that they can withstand the effect. The effect varies some based upon the placement and spread of the probes, and the conductivity of that individual person (dehydration my have a minor effect). Most people drop to the ground when this happens, but not all. Some even begin to lose control of involuntary muscles, though that is less common, and they might wet themselves. Me, I remained standing with very slight assistance in balance, but I did crack a tooth in clenching my teeth and I did manage to hiss out some vulgarities. I do note that my muscles seized and I could not have taken a step nor raised my arm during the application's 5 seconds. All my large muscles seizing made me stiff as a board, essentially.

When the current is discontinued the seizing of the muscles ceases immediately, as does the considerable pain. Depending on one's pain tolerance, and how disoriented one becomes from the pain, one is able to gather themselves in mere seconds and begin full functioning. If you have viewed any tasering videos you have likely seen multiple applications in a row as the person tased generally is fully recovered physically, if not emotionally, in a matter of seconds. In no case of the many taserings that I have witnessed are persons debilitated in any meaningful way beyond a second or two after application stops.

There have been some reported cases of injury or death, but we are talking about rates of substantially less than 1 in a million, and then in individuals with profound pre-existing conditions. As I recall Taser International has materials and videos on their site, many available without passwords or site clearance. I enter the site through a law enforcement access portal and we have somewhat greater access to videos and materials. I have not viewed the general site in some time so forgive me if I am wrong about its quality.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Where did you get this out of my post? I'm sure there's cases on the margins that result in things that might be unjust or unfair- which again, is why I generally go with the better safe than sorry approach. I saw your link to the story, and it strikes me as one of those cases. Based on what I read it sucks for him that he was suspended without pay for five days. I'm sure there's similar cases that also suck for the people involved. Not sure what you want me to do about it.

Acknowledging it would be nice. You give it very short shrift and you trivialize it, and the only thing I am able to deduce from that is you don't care. If it happened to a black person, however, you would care. And that's the disconnect I have with you.

It's a horrible injustice, a terrible tragedy, and a stain on our great nation. I will address it fully in my upcoming motion picture, "Twelve Years a White Guy Who Wasnt Allowed to use the N-word Even Though Black People Can Say It"

Happy?

This isn't about a white guy being allowed to use the n-word. I'd like to think you are smart enough to see beyond that to the broader point I've been trying to make about racism. Once again - blind spot. I've been consistently coming at the difficult topic of racism in 2015 with an idea whose time has come - that maybe the best way to combat all forms of prejudice, racism and injustice is to apply the same set of rules to everyone - ie - treat everyone the same. No reverse discrimination. No red-lining. No affirmative action. No double standards. Stop trying to get into people's heads to get behind context or intent (because as I showed above it is never applied fairly) and give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not racist. Stop framing the issue of police brutality as white racism. It's not accurate, and it's not helping the cause. I say all of this with the same desire that you have - to end racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No way could I convict the cop based on that video.

Of anything?

The video shows him on the ground wrestling with Scott and what appears to be his taser flying off behind him. Attacking a cop is an extremely brazen thing to do and the cop would naturally be concerned for his life.

After finding out Scott ran in the first place because there was a warrant out for his arrest for failure to pay child support I don't have much compassion for him.

At this point, no, I wouldn't convict him of anything.

So you endorse the death penalty for back child support, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer. Good to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

What does this have to do with the officer shooting him in the back?

just another piece of the puzzle of why a jury will never find that cop guilty of murder

I doubt that it is even allowed in trial, but it does explain why he ran.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another officer-involved killing in SC

Narcotics officers were serving a search warrant at Burgess' home on Belcher Road in the Boiling Springs area just before 10 a.m. Thursday when Burgess got belligerent, Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

The narcotics officers called for backup.

Two deputies from traffic patrol showed up to assist the narcotics team.

Burgess continued to be belligerent, grabbed a gun off the top of the refrigerator and pointed it at the traffic deputies, according to Bobo.

The two traffic deputies opened fire, killing Burgess, Bobo said.

A woman and a child were in the home when the narcotics team first arrived, but were allowed to leave before the situation escalated, according to Bobo.

Cops say the bad guy reached for a gun.... :shrug:
What's your point?

Think how many times they would have killed him if he was black!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Edited by msommer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

There was NO bench warrant out for his arrest, though he WAS $7500 behind in payments.
NBC news just reported that there was a bench warrant.

Brian Williams was at the hearings Scott missed and knew this

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

There was a warrant out for Scott's arrest for child support. There was also another person in Scott's car when he took off and ran.

Curiouser and curiouser....

What does this have to do with the officer shooting him in the back?

just another piece of the puzzle of why a jury will never find that cop guilty of murder

I doubt that it is even allowed in trial, but it does explain why he ran.

Probably more suited for a separate topic - and I don't mean in any way to detract from the primary issue here which is unacceptable use of deadly force by the police - but as we splinter off into all these discussions of race it's worthy of mention the irony of what helped lead to this horrible tragedy - a man apparently running from the financial obligations to his child.

While police brutality is a hugely important issue, the bigger one in my opinion is the disintegration of the nuclear family in inner cities (which as we know have a high proportion of blacks). In the mid 60's 25% of black babies were born out of wedlock. Today that number is 70%. It's a huge problem and nobody seems to want to talk about it. #blackbabiesmatter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Again, I would let you pick anyone of three dozen nice downtown locations you could walk your white ### around any particular night to discover just how big of 'lies' these are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

I guess this is the kind of mentality I have an issue with. You're lumping all cops into one collective pool and inditing all of them of injustices because of the actions of a very small percentage of them. How is that any different from seeing James Harrison laying a huge hit out on another player, and then saying that all NFL players are dirty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always caution against making judgements based on partial information but in this case it is hard to see any justification for this shooting. The guy is clearly running away with no threat to the police officer. That is not in doubt by any means. There is no struggle. Further, it appears like this guy calmly walks over and sets the crime scene to try to make a justification for this shooting. It strikes me how cold blooded he looks simply walking over after hand cuffing the poor guy.

I can't see how this would be justified in any way. This is clearly a murder. I hope he gets the death penalty or life in prison. Scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Again, I would let you pick anyone of three dozen nice downtown locations you could walk your white ### around any particular night to discover just how big of 'lies' these are.

do you literally think any white person walking in a predominantly black neighborhood at night ends up dead in a dumpster?

Link to post
Share on other sites

follow up for john

in a few weeks Roger Goodell is going to be surrounded by large aggressive black man after large aggressive black man over the course of three days, what are the odds he gets stabbed, robbed, shot, or otherwise molested?

i mean statistically it is bound to happen right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

I guess this is the kind of mentality I have an issue with. You're lumping all cops into one collective pool and inditing all of them of injustices because of the actions of a very small percentage of them. How is that any different from seeing James Harrison laying a huge hit out on another player, and then saying that all NFL players are dirty?

That and there's constant rush to judgment where the race card is played ad nauseam with little regard for the facts in the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you literally think any white person walking in a predominantly black neighborhood at night ends up dead in a dumpster?

Do you think you a white person won't be harassed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Again, I would let you pick anyone of three dozen nice downtown locations you could walk your white ### around any particular night to discover just how big of 'lies' these are.

do you literally think any white person walking in a predominantly black neighborhood at night ends up dead in a dumpster?

You don't have to end up dead to say certain areas are dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you literally think any white person walking in a predominantly black neighborhood at night ends up dead in a dumpster?

Do you think you a white person won't be harassed?

I lived in a predominately hispanic neighborhood for a number of years in Chicago. Although my immediate neighborhood was nice the surronding areas were not so much so (well known gang neighborhoods).... I went for many walks with my dog and never was harrased once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you literally think any white person walking in a predominantly black neighborhood at night ends up dead in a dumpster?

Do you think you a white person won't be harassed?

I am pretty sure a white person or two has walked through a black neighborhood without getting harassed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

I disagree with almost ever word of this, but I love it anyway. Seems like Fridays bring out the best material in here.

I tend to be lumped in with the "badge lickers" as you guys like to say. Not sure why I seem to support cops so much, because Lord knows I have had nothing but bad experiences with them. I try to look at each case individually and judge for myself who was right and who was wrong, and I have to be honest - in a lot of the cases I see an awful lot of wrongdoing by the people being arrested.

I was very much against the whole Ferguson movement, as many of you know. I looked at the evidence closely and thought it overwhelmingly showed it to be a justified shooting. My first reaction to the Eric Garner video was that I was horrified. After learning about the case I reluctantly had to conclude that it was a horrible tragedy, but that the cops were doing their jobs and enforcing the law. My first reaction to this case is that it looks to be a clear-cut case of an unjustified use of deadly force. In short - murder. And I hope the cop pays the price for it.

I think the prevailing issue here - over-use of force by cops, - is eminently solvable. Cops need better training, they need to be held accountable in better ways (ie - independent outside reviews), and we need more cameras. I also think we need to loosen up some of the more ridiculous laws out there. Stop making it a crime to smoke a joint or have a burnt out tail light. Loosen up on things that are meaningless and at the same time make people more accountable for the important things - like paying child support. I have high hopes that the situation will get better, not worse.

It's interesting all the side issues that come up out of all this, particularly the racism angle. This is the area I continue to be most fascinated with, and the one where I think there is the most disagreement. I think this has shined a light on my long held belief that the most racist people in America today are not whites, but blacks. Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

I grew up in a very liberal family in a mixed racial community. My family is mixed race. 've spent most of my life working closely with recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, mostly in the black community, and I'm pretty solid in my conviction that the traditional liberal views toward race have done a lot of harm the last 20 years. We've created a huge welfare culture where there's no individual accountability anymore. The people I work with who have the highest success rates are the ones who stop blaming the system, stop using excuses, stop thinking everyone is racist and against them, and instead reach out for help, appeal to peoples' better angels, work hard, and take responsibility for all their actions. I prefer to empower people rather than play the victim card. Others I work with use different approaches, and sometimes those work as well. But by and large they don't. Not that anyone cares, but that's where my views on racism come from. Like someone else said it above, our views on a topic like this usually come from our own personal experiences.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Again, I would let you pick anyone of three dozen nice downtown locations you could walk your white ### around any particular night to discover just how big of 'lies' these are.

And I encourage you to do the same thing a few other places like Callao or Phnom Penh or Manila

IMHO it's about poverty and lack of opportunity, in the US compounded by institutional racism that you so fervently believe does not exist

Edited by msommer
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking blacks commit more crimes than other races, correct? Inevitably this is going to lead to profiling. I don't know how you avoid that.

That's why I just wish we could discuss excessive use of force separate from the race issue. Show me a cop harassing a minority that's not resisting arrest, running, escalating the situation, etc and I'm right there on their side with everyone else.

The topic should be non-race specific and target general abuse by some police officers. I think that would be more productive. Unfortunately, because of the prevelence of black crime, police do harrass innocent blacks more often than whites. But I think if the issue of police conduct is addressed in general terms, it will translate into everyone being treated better.

unless the "prevalence of black crime" is a myth which is propagated by the police targeting black people more

I suggest you take a late night stroll down the streets of south Chicago and test your theory. Report back. :popcorn:

I'd suggest that's a very poor way to indict a race as somehow inherently criminal.

No one said anything about inherently criminal. But there are endless stats which do show it is a problem beyond the test I suggested above.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Benjamin Disraeli

Again, I would let you pick anyone of three dozen nice downtown locations you could walk your white ### around any particular night to discover just how big of 'lies' these are.

And I encourage you to do the same thing a few other places like Callao or Phnom Penh or Manila

IMHO it's about poverty and lack of opportunity, in the US compounded by institutional racism that you so fervently believe does not exist

So the statistics are not lies. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

I'm not accepting your underlying premise or analysis. But I'll give you an answer: It could be Opportunity -- they have guns and the authority of the state. Or it could be nature -- people who become police officers are more likely to engage in violent behavior than non-police officers. Or it could be something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

I'm not accepting your underlying premise or analysis. But I'll give you an answer: It could be Opportunity -- they have guns and the authority of the state. Or it could be nature -- people who become police officers are more likely to engage in violent behavior than non-police officers. Or it could be something else.

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny seeing people make sweeping generalizations about the black community as a whole, and then passionately arguing that every single instance of violence by police officers is an isolated instance without any underlying causes or connection to any other incidents.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny seeing people make sweeping generalizations about the black community as a whole, and then passionately arguing that every single instance of violence by police officers is an isolated instance without any underlying causes or connection to any other incidents.

:goodposting:

Works both ways too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny seeing people make sweeping generalizations about the black community as a whole, and then passionately arguing that every single instance of violence by police officers is an isolated instance without any underlying causes or connection to any other incidents.

so true

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those of us that believe there are symbiotic problems between the police and urban (not necessarily black) or wildly criminal/rural communities and that these problems have their origins in the breakdown of civil society and the weird centralization, political entrenchment, and unionization of those with the monopoly on force?

Or, maybe I'd put it better if I just said I can see the cyclical element of all it. It's almost intractable. Reasonable reforms and normative social pressures might be needed on both sides.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

my point has nothing to do with the cop...i hope the cop gets whatever punishment fits that crime ...i wouldnt have an issue if he got the death penalty if convicted of premeditated murder.

there is somewhere around a 0% chance the cop is convicted of premeditated murder, let alone get the death penalty.

well it turned into premeditated murder when he decided to keep shooting ...especially the last shot he fired

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

Unless you can argue that he had time between his shots to 'rationally considering the timing', no way is this premeditated.

And yet there is case law out there that states the time necessary for premeditation can happen in the twinkling of an eye, a moment, less than a second, at least there is if I remember correctly. Now those decisions are judicial interpretations, and getting a jury to buy into that may be difficult, but in my initial post in this thread I noted the pause in the rhythm of the shots between the first 7 and the final shot precisely because that pause could at least be argued as premeditation. This is to not even mention the time it took to draw the weapon and to squeeze off the first shot also was an opportunity to evaluate the situation, as was the time it took to squeeze off each shot.

I am not arguing for premeditation. I merely note that as a bar exam question this scenario leaves open the door to arguing for it.

This guys is smart. He must have went to Hamline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny seeing people make sweeping generalizations about the black community as a whole, and then passionately arguing that every single instance of violence by police officers is an isolated instance without any underlying causes or connection to any other incidents.

But they are isolated incidents unless you are wearing a tinfoil hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

I'm not accepting your underlying premise or analysis. But I'll give you an answer: It could be Opportunity -- they have guns and the authority of the state. Or it could be nature -- people who become police officers are more likely to engage in violent behavior than non-police officers. Or it could be something else.

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism/discrimination is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Edited by PinkydaPimp
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

I'm not accepting your underlying premise or analysis. But I'll give you an answer: It could be Opportunity -- they have guns and the authority of the state. Or it could be nature -- people who become police officers are more likely to engage in violent behavior than non-police officers. Or it could be something else.

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who describe yourselves as "pro-cop," why is that?

Are you a cop yourself?

Is your brother-in-law a cop? He's a nice guy, right? He must be, or your sister wouldn't have married him, right?

Do you have another union job in government, and you need to stick up for your brothers?

Or maybe you've bought in to the myth that cops "serve and protect"?

Because the fact is, cops do not exist to serve and protect "the public." They exist to serve and protect themselves and their governments employers. They exist to shake down motorists to fill their coffers.

They do not prevent crimes. They rarely even solve them after they occur.

They are the enforcement arm of the coercive state. Yet, they are effectively above the laws they enforce. They literally get away with beating killing people on a daily basis.

If they beat or kill someone, they will lie about it. And so will their colleagues.

If there is an investigation into their malfeasance, it's conducted by their bosses. On the rare occasion a case makes it to a grand jury, there is almost never an indictment.

Cops are the standing army that the founding fathers warned against. They consider citizens -- mere mundanes -- to be the enemy.

So what am I missing here? What are the reasons for any rational American citizen to be "pro-cop"?

Black people attribute far more to racism than is actually there. I said this earlier but I'll say it again. If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in the US, why is it that we don't that reflected in the numbers on white-on-black violence outside the police force? In fact, we see the opposite.

Im not sure i follow. Why would you expect to see this correlation?

If these white cops are merely symptomatic of underlying racism in our society as a whole, why wouldn't we?

I'm not accepting your underlying premise or analysis. But I'll give you an answer: It could be Opportunity -- they have guns and the authority of the state. Or it could be nature -- people who become police officers are more likely to engage in violent behavior than non-police officers. Or it could be something else.

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

:unsure: not following.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

:unsure: not following.

Just seems to be too much over-generalizing. I just don't believe there are a bunch of closet racists running around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

:unsure: not following.

Just seems to be too much over-generalizing. I just don't believe there are a bunch of closet racists running around.

I THINK what he is saying is that the "whole" is more than a collection of the parts. So: An institution (school, police force, etc) may be made up of perfectly fine, non-racist teachers/cops, but that the institution may have results that, on the agregate, appear to have negative affects on a sub-class of individuals (minoties, women, etc.).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

:unsure: not following.

Just seems to be too much over-generalizing. I just don't believe there are a bunch of closet racists running around.

I don't know if you are naive or in denial. Edited by urbanhack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence subsided in the 60's and 70's and there was violence. People's racism is internalized now. Lot's of racist folks go to work with minorities, tolerate them but would never think about performing any acts of violence towards them. However, they will go home and laugh at a racist joke or post racist crap on the internet.

This. Im saying this subconscious type of racism is more visible within institutions as a whole. Like Law enforcement, legal, education, financial for example. It has more to do with laws and practices that tend to unfairly harm a particular group of people as opposed to the people themselves being overtly racist. Like unfair pay for women or unfair housing practices against blacks for example.

Who the #### do you hang out with? Or do you just project this onto people?

:unsure: not following.

Just seems to be too much over-generalizing. I just don't believe there are a bunch of closet racists running around.

I THINK what he is saying is that the "whole" is more than a collection of the parts. So: An institution (school, police force, etc) may be made up of perfectly fine, non-racist teachers/cops, but that the institution may have results that, on the agregate, appear to have negative affects on a sub-class of individuals (minoties, women, etc.).

Yes, you stated it much better than I.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...