Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

i'm trying to parse this all.

 

Sotomayors dissent says she wasn't near the cops or threatening, yet the article says she was 6 feet from the other person. 

 

21 feet is the safe distance from someone with a knife. 6 feet is entirely too close. You'd think a supreme court justice would know that.

 

The 21 feet thing really shouldn't be the only defining factor though right? Said she was composed, non-threatening, and had the knife at her side NOT pointing or gesturing towards the police. Non of the other cops fired and non of them said they felt threatened. Whats the deal here?  

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

If it would have been fatal would you have the same mindset? I suppose you would but I want to be accurate while I judge you. 

 

Implying what? The officer shot to injure?

 

Not acceptable. You don't grade based on the outcome of the actions, you grade on the actions. He was either in the right to shoot or he wasn't, changing that based on where the bullet lands is not smart.

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Also, that tweet is dumb. It doesn't shield you if you claim to not know you were violating someone's civil rights, it shields you if the rights you're accused of violating were not clearly understood to be civil rights at the time of the alleged violation and requires you to be acting in good faith and with due care.

 

Just seems like another loophole to me brah. I dont know how you even argue someone wasn't acting in good faith in court. But I feel you. The tweet was much more alarming than the actual piece. Hes good for that. Its a shame he does that so often cause I think he makes valid points without it. 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Implying what? The officer shot to injure?

 

Not acceptable. You don't grade based on the outcome of the actions, you grade on the actions. He was either in the right to shoot or he wasn't, changing that based on where the bullet lands is not smart.

 

Im not talking about judging the officer in that quote. Im judging twa. I dont expect its realistic for a cop to shot to injure. I was just wondering if in twa's world the person would have deserved to die if they would have died. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

The 21 feet thing really shouldn't be the only defining factor though right? Said she was composed, non-threatening, and had the knife at her side NOT pointing or gesturing towards the police. Non of the other cops fired and non of them said they felt threatened. Whats the deal here?  

 

Being at the side is irrelevant - the safe zone works whether the knife is at your side or whatever.

 

I don't know that the other cops shooting matters one bit. Presumably they were all scattered around the two people, as that's pretty basic training. So, one has a view the others don't have. That's pretty much the point, it also makes their ability to attack the police more challenged (they can't just take off in one direction towards the police) - same with fleeing. How far away they stand, how they stand around the person, how often they change positions (yes, they change positions if allowed), the fact they make you turn around and walk backwards... it's all part of training and it is for a reason.

 

She wasn't non-threatening (in the context of what the police know) - she was holding a butcher knife in her yard within 6 feet of another person in front of a handful of cops called for a person with a knife behaving erratically, and she didn't obey orders.

 

I have no idea whether this guy should be fired or put in jail or not. I don't know enough about the case. I was simply commenting on Sotomayor's comments in the one article, and the tweet that (poorly) summarized the ruling and article.

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Just seems like another loophole to me brah. I dont know how you even argue someone wasn't acting in good faith in court. But I feel you. The tweet was much more alarming than the actual piece. Hes good for that. Its a shame he does that so often cause I think he makes valid points without it.

 

Yeah I don't know how you argue that either, to be honest... my thought would be doing what you're trained, etc, but I'm completely guessing...

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Watching the body cam videos of the Stephon Clark police killing ... it was really dark and pretty tense from the police perspective. 

 

If I was an officer in a high crime area, I dont think I am getting out of my squad car to chase anyone at night, in the dark. 

 

Zero incentive for a police officer to pursue someone at night for anything less than a fresh murderer or rapist or serious serious criminal that poses a danger to commit more violent crimes in the very near future. 

 

Tough split second life-altering decisions.  

 

 

 

[Llevron]

I can see how you can do what you are trained and make a bad decision but still do it in good faith. I dunno, seems complicated and easy to get past. Thats what think is absurd. I feel like it got more convoluted to prove the police are in the wrong and to me that should be a priority. 

 

Being honest though my initial reaction was at the tweet - which isnt far off - but off enough that I made a misunderstanding. My bad. 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I can see how you can do what you are trained and make a bad decision but still do it in good faith. I dunno, seems complicated and easy to get past. Thats what think is absurd. I feel like it got more convoluted to prove the police are in the wrong and to me that should be a priority. 

 

Being honest though my initial reaction was at the tweet - which isnt far off - but off enough that I made a misunderstanding. My bad. 

 

We should be able to protect the police from being punished for acting in good faith to do the job we've asked them to do, but also hold them accountable when they step over the line.

 

The scotus ruling reads that way to me. The actual process of holding them accountable, however... well we've seen how that's been going... we've reached a point where every time the police make a mistake there's a group of people who assume it must be another action in bad faith, and there's a group of people who refuse to consider that maybe the officer was acting in bad faith.

 

Unsurprisingly that gets us no where, but it's where we are.

Edited April 3, 2018 by tshile

[twa]

28 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

If it would have been fatal would you have the same mindset? I suppose you would but I want to be accurate while I judge you. 

 

While I would regret the loss of life my mindset would remain the same.

 

If you put yourself in a position to be shot ya shouldn't be surprised it happens.(even if they regret it afterwards)

 

Judge away

 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

We should be able to protect the police from being punished for acting in good faith to do the job we've asked them to do, but also hold them accountable when they step over the line.

 

The scotus ruling reads that way to me. The actual process of holding them accountable, however... well we've seen how that's been going...

 

Just like usual, we see some of the same things but read it from a different vantage point. I really love that about the conversations I have with you and the rest of the folks on these issues. Though y'all piss me off sometimes, its necessary to have another perspective and I appreciate it. Makes me a better person and communicator. 

 

This is a perfect example. Holding them accountable is exactly what i'm afraid this makes it harder to do. Yes,we should be able to protect the police from being punished unfairly. I agree wholeheartedly. But that is not the problem this country is facing right now. This country (or, some people in it. Minorities in particular but not just them) is indeed facing a problem with the police/officials not being held accountable to some pretty egregious abuses in power and good faith. This is what should be addressed.

 

Point blank I don't trust the police. And anything that makes it easier for them to shoot me and get away with it makes me upset.

 

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

While I would regret the loss of life my mindset would remain the same.

 

If you put yourself in a position to be shot ya shouldn't be surprised it happens.(even if they regret it afterwards)

 

Funny. She didn't commit any crime. Didn't hear the officers commands to drop the weapon supposedly, and didn't even leave her front door if I remember correctly. Yet she put herself in the position to be shot. Bet had this been one of your kids you would sing a much different tune. 

 

The hypocrisy in this statement compared to what you messaged me that day I really pissed you off is hilarious though lol

[Kosher Ham]

The message being discussed in this fashion is disgraceful. 

 

Hmm... 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

 

 

 

Funny. She didn't commit any crime. Didn't hear the officers commands to drop the weapon supposedly, and didn't even leave her front door if I remember correctly. Yet she put herself in the position to be shot. Bet had this been one of your kids you would sing a much different tune. 

 

The hypocrisy in this statement compared to what you messaged me that day I really pissed you off is hilarious though lol

 

She obviously disturbed the peace enough to get someone to call 911

 

I would certainly not take one of my kids being shot like that well, but neither would it change my opinion.

 

You see hypocrisy because you see her as innocent, but it wasn't her mere existence that set stage for the shooting.

btw I wasn't pissed, merely working under orders (and I heard mine)

[tshile]

@Llevron

I hear you. I'm not against on you on this. 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

@Llevron

I hear you. I'm not against on you on this. 

 

I know you dont. Which is why I said how much I appreciate your perspective. We can agree and see it differently all at the same time. 

[Dan T.]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

She obviously disturbed the peace enough to get someone to call 911

 

 

My son babysat a neighbor's 5 year old boy.  When my son told Charlie he couldn't have an ice cream sandwich, Charlie dialed 911.  And they came to investigate.

 

By way of saying that someone calling 911 doesn't mean ****, in and of itself.

[twa]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

My son babysat a neighbor's 5 year old boy.  When my son told Charlie he couldn't have an ice cream sandwich, Charlie dialed 911.  And they came to investigate.

 

By way of saying that someone calling 911 doesn't mean ****, in and of itself.

 

Did Charlie mention a weapon and erratic behavior?

Did your son have a weapon near Charlie when they responded?

 

I'm not seeing what you call in and of itself in my posts.

[Dan T.]

Just now, twa said:

I'm not seeing what you call in and of itself in my posts.

 

I knew that you wouldn't.

[twa]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Certainly absurd to be outside attacking a tree with a knife to the point someone called 911

 

Absurd to hold a knife when cops arrive with guns out.

 

 

in and of itself?

[Bozo the kKklown]

I can’t breathe’: Asheville police video shows white officer beating, choking black jaywalking suspect

 

Video in link

[China]

California sheriff: Killing suspects ‘better financially’ than wounding them

 

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. 
A California sheriff up for re-election has found his words coming back to haunt him after a local police union dug up a 12-year-old video in which he stated it was “better financially” for law enforcement officers to kill suspects than to injure them.

 

Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood made the statement in a snippet of video posted on Facebook Monday by the Kern County Detention Officers Association. The short segment was taken from a longer video shot when Youngblood, who was first elected as sheriff in 2006, was answering questions at an endorsement meeting during his first campaign. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Gamebreaker]

On 4/3/2018 at 12:43 PM, twa said:

 

Did Charlie mention a weapon and erratic behavior?

Did your son have a weapon near Charlie when they responded?

 

I'm not seeing what you call in and of itself in my posts.

 

Many of these situations begin with some racist ****face seeing a minority walking down the street and exaggerating this person committing the egregious crime of walking in public to the police. A 911 call, that we know nothing more about, doesn’t erase the very real possibility the entire point of the call was bull****. 

[Gamebreaker]

On 4/5/2018 at 9:39 AM, BenningRoadSkin said:

I can’t breathe’: Asheville police video shows white officer beating, choking black jaywalking suspect

 

Video in link

 

“I beat the hell out of his head, not gonna lie about that.” Said immediately after he fabricated half of what happened to the responding officers. 

[twa]

2 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

Many of these situations begin with some racist ****face seeing a minority walking down the street and exaggerating this person committing the egregious crime of walking in public to the police. A 911 call, that we know nothing more about, doesn’t erase the very real possibility the entire point of the call was bull****. 

 

certainly a possibility, many people are assholes.

 

Doesn't change the need for police to respond to calls or people interacting with police needing to be aware of not presenting a threat.

[spjunkies]

This cops behavior is unacceptable. 

 

 

[Llevron]

How is he able to stand up? 

[Gamebreaker]

They were so shocked at his behavior. For some people that’s just your typical Tuesday.