quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
The fact of the matter is that the guy, however screwed up he might have been at the time, had four guns pointed at him, and, however much screwed up he might or might not have been at the time, made no threatening move towards the police.

By her own account, the police officer killed the man not because he presented any real threat to anybody, but because he didn't respond to her own satisfaction to her own 'police order.'

She was a nut job who had no business even being in that position in the first place, as the other three policemen's otherwise assessment of of the situation attested to well enough.

He was trying to get into an idling vehicle.
he continued to try and retrieve things from his pockets.
he continued to ignore police orders for over 30 seconds.


yeah those are all threatening moves towards police...
attempting to enter the vehicle alone (intent was defined by the fact that he walked to the driver side door and faced it) while at gun point against police order is evidence enough that he was engaging in behavior that is potentially threatening the individuals on scene or general public at large. If he managed to access that car while in a hallucinatory state (as the first officer made the assessment that he was high on some type of controlled substance indicative of PCP) His actions could of lead to the death of the officer on the scene or any other innocent life anywhere in the immediate area as that car could of been converted into a battering ram.

You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening.

You are welcome to explain to the audience where in any legal code in the the US exists that being under the influence of whatever substance carries the sentence of death, or where the police are empowered to determine actual guilt of any crime by themselves in the first place.

Determination of guilt is constitutionally empowered to the courts, not the police, however much that pisses you off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening.

You have yet to prove that you are anything other than a blithering chickenshit, with inclination to find any small moving object to be a 'threat.'

Still trying to get back at getting beat up when you were a kid?

I got beat up by guys twice my size in school days (and a few only somewhat larger. I just didn't have a clue at the time), got bitten by large dogs, etc.

I didn't want to kill them, just wanted to get away.

Instead of crying years into adulthood and pounding table with impotent fists like you are doing now, and wanting the police to shoot your former (and likely present, as considered) enemies, I found a way to meet them, I expanded the social repertoire, and they now all want to be my friends, especially the erstwhile mean dogs and bad men. I've gotten so many free beers and pool games (billiards) and face licks after I finally figured it out, not that I can keep account of which came by way of the dogs or the parolees.

Your choice; move on or be stuck as a bitter old man, whatever age you are at present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

know that to the left there has to be at least one dead cop befor they use force.
You know that if some one under arrest cannot be stopped from leaving unless they kill a cop.
you know that if he tries to leave and they use "non leathal" force (Gardner) and he dies from the stress of the fight they are guilty of murder and some heroic black man will commit self defense by driving from the Carolinas to ambush cops.

sure after some heroic cop blasts the fuck out of a black man, because clearly he was in emminent danger of immediate death and had to defend himself and shoot that mutha fucka in the back before he got too far away

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

know that to the left there has to be at least one dead cop befor they use force.
You know that if some one under arrest cannot be stopped from leaving unless they kill a cop.
you know that if he tries to leave and they use "non leathal" force (Gardner) and he dies from the stress of the fight they are guilty of murder and some heroic black man will commit self defense by driving from the Carolinas to ambush cops.

sure after some heroic cop blasts the fuck out of a black man, because clearly he was in emminent danger of immediate death and had to defend himself and shoot that mutha fucka in the back before he got too far away






we know the shooting was justified because he is black and running away!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
So my '33 percent' is a "misrepresentation"'of your 'one third.'
Here we go . . .

Yes, here we go. I said to Igor:
You're going a bit over the top there, Igor. As far as I can see, she never chose to "execute" anybody. Only about one in three gunshot wounds are fatal. Absent a reason to believe that she intentionally fatally wounded him, all you can accuse her of is choosing to fire.

You said:
So then; only 33% of a death by gun is fault of the shooter, the rest is just target practice.

That, of course, is a complete misrepresentation of what I said, and a non sequitur in the bargain, which gives rise to the question of whether you are simply dishonest or a victim of mental deficit. And now you are claiming that my charge of misrepresentation is based on nothing more substantial that your use of "33%" instead of one out of three, which only makes the question more pressing.

So how about helping us out here. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

know that to the left there has to be at least one dead cop befor they use force.
You know that if some one under arrest cannot be stopped from leaving unless they kill a cop.
you know that if he tries to leave and they use "non leathal" force (Gardner) and he dies from the stress of the fight they are guilty of murder and some heroic black man will commit self defense by driving from the Carolinas to ambush cops.

sure after some heroic cop blasts the fuck out of a black man, because clearly he was in emminent danger of immediate death and had to defend himself and shoot that mutha fucka in the back before he got too far away






we know the shooting was justified because he is black and running away!

quote:

And - given the individual has expressed intent to enter said motor vehicle (which can be considered a deadly weapon in it's own right), a disregard for the order of police, the unconfirmed potential threat of the vehicle potentially being an explosive hazard... reasonable probable cause is created in those actions which will endanger human life


We have satisfied both conditions in order for legal Justifiable Homicide to be committed by a Law Officer in the state of Oklahoma...

quote:

We have satisfied both conditions in order for legal Justifiable Homicide to be committed by a Law Officer in the state of Oklahoma...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So then; only 33% of a death by gun is fault of the shooter, the rest is just target practice.

So then?? If you ever grow a second brain cell, it's going to wonder how you've even managed to put your pants on with the one you've got.

Sometimes, K, your comments and knowledge are admirable. At times like this they are utterly disappointing trash. I expect better of you.

"So then;" you are defending his misrepresentation of my post (full stop).

No, of course you're not. You didn't say anything of the kind. The point of your comment was something completely different. The only question is whether the "so then" at issue was a deliberate misrepresentation or an accident of diminished mental capacity.

In the case you referenced, I chose what seemed the kinder option.

K.

quote:

In fact - if you actually knew the case - Officer Shelby was the first responded on scene.
This fact has been proven through several sources.
you continue to ignore this and persist on the idea that she came later.

quote:

And that goes for a 20 year old black girl so there are the same odds she wouldn't ave been shot.
Why do people insist on the demographic, and not the action?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In fact - if you actually knew the case - Officer Shelby was the first responded on scene.
This fact has been proven through several sources.
you continue to ignore this and persist on the idea that she came later.

You're right. I was mistaken about her time of arrival. She was on a domestic disturbance call when she came upon the Crutcher car. According to her attorney however Crutcher did not call her over for help. But even that is not so important as with her training she should have understood why he did not obey her commands. His reaction was repeatedly to raise his arms. That is not a man who intends harm to anyone. That is a man who was incapacitated by drugs and could not explicitly perform the physical requirements to get down on his knees as she demanded. He pulled his hands into his pocket two or three times and each time nothing came out. So, no weapon. No reason to be afraid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And that goes for a 20 year old black girl so there are the same odds she wouldn't ave been shot.
Why do people insist on the demographic, and not the action?

Right, a 20 year old black girl would never be physically accosted by the police

[image][/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I would agree that cops are risking their lives every day to deal with thugs, criminals and junkies for us. Are there a few bad apples, sure.. such is the nature of humanity.

I too would like to support the overall police efforts. I agree they signed up for a dangerous job. A job to bring people to justice. Not a job to dispense justice. This particular guy we are talking about today was guilty of 2 misdemeanors. Very minor and could have been handled with slaps on the wrist or fines. No other cop on-scene was of the mindset that lethal force was needed. Yet here you are not only defending the cops actions but somehow throwing this guy into a bin of "thugs, criminals, and junkies". The problem for some people is that what they saw was a thug, criminal, or junkie. They didn't see a man in distress, a citizen who needed help. You may be a racist but I don't know you well enough to make that judgment so I will not call you one. The fact of the matter is that some people see black men, especially ones of his complexion and stature and conclude that he is somehow a danger to society.

Also lest we not forget; thugs, criminals, and junkies are hazards of their jobs but their job is to keep the peace and do so by placing the unruly and dangerous into custody and bringing them for their day in court. There may have been better ways to do it. The BLM argument: If the guy had been a 20-year-old white girl doing exactly the same thing, the public outrage would have been a bit more serious. We see black people getting shot and we say "what did that thug do?"

If it had been a white person there would have been little outrage because there would have been little coverage.
Google white people getting shot by the police and you get stories about the police killing blacks.
From the press coverage white lives don't matter.

Actually had it been a 20 yr old white girl, the cop probably wouldn't have shot her at all, so no there wouldn't have been outrage or even press coverage.

MY point is that there is virtually no coverage whe a white person is killed by the police. Even though, when compared to blacks, and crimes committed by each group there "should be" (for the states to come out right) far more blacks shot than whites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And that goes for a 20 year old black girl so there are the same odds she wouldn't ave been shot.
Why do people insist on the demographic, and not the action?

Right, a 20 year old black girl would never be physically accosted by the police

[image][/image]