Rawstory: Dash cam video shows unarmed black man with hands in air before Tulsa police shoot him dead

[visionary]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

So what?

Mob rule?

No thanks.

So make changes.  So make the shootings less likely.  So do more to show that police care about people they're supposed to be protecting.

So do a much better job of showing that there is no covering up.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Does anyone actually believe that open carry really works the same for black dudes as it does for white dudes?

This is not even me trying to be provocative. But the McDonalds in my home town in WV looks like a saloon in Tombstone. And no one blinks because....hey West Virginians exercising their constitutional rights. I have a feeling that if the same scene occurred in Downtown Houston at that McDonalds by the Greyhound station once open carry becomes a thing here, well, there will be some blinking.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

So make changes.  So make the shootings less likely.  So do more to show that police care about people they're supposed to be protecting.

So do a much better job of showing that there is no covering up.

It'll take two for that dance, and neither side seems willing to even consider it at this point

I know it's easy to blame it all on the police, unfortunately it's not that easy. Unless you just want to give in to mob rule.

[SemperFi Skins]

Just now, visionary said:

So make changes.  So make the shootings less likely.  So do more to show that police care about people they're supposed to be protecting.

 

that's a double edged sword... makes it a lot tougher to want to protect people who are now looking to hurt you, and I am not generalizing, but the media showing the riots and hatred against police does not help things with progressing the relationship between the two.

I happen to work with police everyday, and not that they were all happy to go to work before, but now it's more of a target than ever. Same could be said for black males... so essentially, I blame the majority on the media.

[visionary]

Just now, tshile said:

It'll take two for that dance, and neither side seems willing to even consider it at this point

I know it's easy to blame it all on the police, unfortunately it's not that easy. Unless you just want to give in to mob rule.

No one is advocating mob rule.  

[grego]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Does anyone actually believe that open carry really works the same for black dudes as it does for white dudes?

This is not even me trying to be provocative. But the McDonalds in my home town in WV looks like a saloon in Tombstone. And no one blinks because....hey West Virginians exercising their constitutional rights. I have a feeling that if the same scene occurred in Downtown Houston at that McDonalds by the Greyhound station once open carry becomes a thing here, well, there will be some blinking.

Is the violent crime rate in downtown  Houston higher than your town in wva? 

 

 

[twa]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Does anyone actually believe that open carry really works the same for black dudes as it does for white dudes?

 

 

Depends on the black and white dudes for the most part.

Plenty carry here since they allowed it finally, Houston is a poor example since open carry was banned nearly forever.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

No one is advocating mob rule.  

when you put it on one side, even when they're legally justified, because the other side is so angry/unhappy, that's exactly what you're advocating for.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

8 minutes ago, grego said:

Is the violent crime rate in downtown  Houston higher than your town in wva?

 

 

 

In all honesty, that's becoming quite a horse race. My high school had two students and a recent alum arrested for murder in the last 18 months. The heroin epidemic is real.

 

But your argument is flawed. Shouldn't we want open carry in high crime areas where it might do some good? Is your position that we should only allow open carry in places where there is no need for it?

[visionary]

Just now, tshile said:

when you put it on one side, even when they're legally justified, because the other side is so angry/unhappy, that's exactly what you're advocating for.

No, I'm not putting it all on one side.  Obviously it does not help to destroy property or hurt others in response to these shootings, but there must be an understanding of the anger and the mistrust and suspicion many have and there must be work to fix this and make these shootings less frequent. 

Sitting back and writing off deaths as if they are normal and ok, is not a solution.  If anything it tosses gasoline on the fire.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

No, I'm not putting it all on one side.  Obviously it does not help to destroy property or hurt others in response to these shootings, but there must be an understanding of the anger and the mistrust and suspicion many have and there must be work to fix this and make these shootings less frequent. 

Sitting back and writing off deaths as if they are normal and ok, is not a solution.  If anything it tosses gasoline on the fire.

The deaths are not normal or OK when the person is not doing anything wrong and still gets shot.

When they start putting people's lives at risk (including the officers') then it becomes an unfortunately necessary part of life. If you want law and order, someone has to enforce it, and those people wind up in those situations.

Watching people burn things down, chant death to cops, and riot when it turns out the guy had a gun, or attacked a cop, or that they died while being subdued after resisting arrest is laughable.

Watching it then be turned into a whole national crisis of how black people are treated, when we have stats that show a serious issue with crime in certain neighborhoods (that doesn't exist in others), and the numerous other things this has turned into, while there's no accountability for the people who live in and create this environments is also laughable.

None of that is fixed by saying we need to understand the anger and outrage even when the cops are found to have been legally justified. That's giving into mob rule. They walk around chanting "no justice no peace" after a guy's killed for attacking a police officer.

It's a joke.

It's makes it impossible to focus on the cases where there's actual proof of wrongdoing by the police.

[grego]

12 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

In all honesty, that's becoming quite a horse race. My high school had two students and a recent alum arrested for murder in the last 18 months. The heroin epidemic is real.

 

But your argument is flawed. Shouldn't we want open carry in high crime areas where it might do some good? Is your position that we should only allow open carry in places where there is no need for it?

I'm not sure. It'd be an interesting thing to see, though. 

Still, Houston has 200 to 300 murders a year, on average. Probably quite a bit higher than where you live. 

Would open carry laws in Houston decrease murder or crime in general? That's a good question. 

[Chew]

43 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Does anyone actually believe that open carry really works the same for black dudes as it does for white dudes?

 

There's a video o f a social experiment showing just that.  Two guys in their 20s, one black one white, both walk down the same street in the same town with the same AR-15 slung over their shoulders.  I think they did it a few days apart.  For the white guy, one cop car pulls over and talks to him for a few minutes, and is then let go.  The black guy has 3 cop cars pull up, they draw and aim their guns at him, and order him to lie face down on the ground.  Oh, and at the very end of the video, you can see they had the dog ready to go too.  

found it:

 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, youngchew said:

found it:

what I find interesting is the first cop acted like a complete ass and created the scene.

every cop that showed up after that didn't even pull out their gun and seemed more like 'wtf is going on here?'

dude at the end, that grabbed the ar-15, looked real shaky.

[visionary]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

The deaths are not normal or OK when the person is not doing anything wrong and still gets shot.

When they start putting people's lives at risk (including the officers') then it becomes an unfortunately necessary part of life. If you want law and order, someone has to enforce it, and those people wind up in those situations.

Doing anything wrong should not be an on the spot death sentence and execution.

It seems like an insane and very difficult standard to set for confused people put in a dangerous situation, often not of their choosing.

It's definitely not a necessary part of life, I also don't think it's normal in most places.

That said, I don't really expect it to change here, but more understanding is definitely needed on both sides of the issue or things will keep getting worse.

I am curious why you mention having a gun as akin to attacking a police officer though.

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, visionary said:

Doing anything wrong should not be an on the spot death sentence and execution.

It's not. It's justification for physical force to be used against you, sometimes that results in death.

Sounds a lot less sensational, doesn't it? Doesn't quite play on your emotions the same as how you worded it.

There's a difference between a cop using force (especially when justified, as you said) and the result being the person died, and the cop deciding you deserve a death sentence and executed you.

Funny who chooses certain language and the other doesn't.

4 minutes ago, visionary said:

I am curious why you mention having a gun as akin to attacking a police officer though.

 

If you don't get why then you obviously don't understand the situation.

The cops are not authorized to kill people. They're authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves (and others). Knife, gun, fist, bat, it doesn't matter. You're allowed to defend yourself when attacked by another person. That's not a luxury only afforded to police, either (at least not in many states.)

You don't understand that?

[visionary]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

It's not. It's justification for physical force to be used against you, sometimes that results in death.

Sounds a lot less sensational, doesn't it? Doesn't quite play on your emotions the same as how you worded it.

There's a difference between a cop using force (especially when justified, as you said) and the result being the person died, and the cop deciding you deserve a death sentence and executed you.

Funny who chooses certain language and the other doesn't.

I thought we were specifically talking about deaths?

[tshile]

Just now, visionary said:

I thought we were specifically talking about deaths?

We are.

What part of what I said caused confusion about that?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

20 minutes ago, grego said:

I'm not sure. It'd be an interesting thing to see, though.

Still, Houston has 200 to 300 murders a year, on average. Probably quite a bit higher than where you live.

Would open carry laws in Houston decrease murder or crime in general? That's a good question.

 There were three last year in a town of 2200 people. I'm not doing the math, but that seems really bad.

 

 

 

[Gamebreaker]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

Even if their was a book, there wasn't a book.  Unless there is a clear video, it's always best to wait and see how it plays out. Sometimes justice gets lucky though.  When three cops killed a 92 year old lady in Atlanta and then planted drugs in her home, their stories fell apart and they went to prison.  I remember calling bull**** on it immediately because the initial story claimed that she had managed to shoot all three of the them.  Can you imagine a 92 year old woman having the reaction time and accuracy to target and hit three cops during a no knock raid while they are shooting at her?  Maybe in the matrix, but that's not happening in the real world.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/new-videos-provide-fresh-look-at-st-louis-police-killing/article_e0530fba-5db7-500e-9b31-3dd4512fe5bc.html

Here's another incident where an officer planted evidence. A cop was in pursuit of a suspect, told his partner he was going to kill him, and when the suspect's car crashed he jumped right out of his squad car and murdered him. Evidence has come out after he left the force that he planted a firearm in the suspect's vehicle, the cover his story that he only fired on the suspect because he was reaching for a gun. He's now being charged for murder. 

[Mooka]

 

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That's what confuses me.  I could understand (not condone, but understand) if the went and burned down the police station or something.  But what did that mom and pop store do to you?

 

Poor areas have different dynamics. (for the sake of argument just going to assume riots are done by poor people in poor areas) There's a vastly different sense of ownership and community.  

For example, the projects are subsidized and owned/run by some larger public or government authority. The people that live there don't own any of it, nor is anyone responsible for any of it. So, they might piss all over the elevator in their own building or let their dogs tear up the outside 24/7. They don't care, its not their ****, no one owns it. If you need something fixed or some maintenance you don't contact a specific person that is responsible or cares, you contact a generic source, and they send whomever to fix it that don't care either.  

That mom and pop store is not your local store, its not part of your own community, not if you never have any money. If you're always broke, that store is just another place you're not welcome. 

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, SemperFi Skins said:

 

Not arguing by any means, but jumping to conclusions and rioting is a good way to separate yourselves and certainly will do nothing for progress. Many of these cases, definitely not all, have been proven to go the way of the officers acting within their means.

*Not taking sides either, that's important to note*

Another way of saying this is District Attorneys and PDs have found ways to get their officers off legally. Yet not morally. 

There are also a growing number of cases where the officer has been charged with murder and they haven't gone to trial yet. 

[mcsluggo]

13 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/new-videos-provide-fresh-look-at-st-louis-police-killing/article_e0530fba-5db7-500e-9b31-3dd4512fe5bc.html

Here's another incident where an officer planted evidence. A cop was in pursuit of a suspect, told his partner he was going to kill him, and when the suspect's car crashed he jumped right out of his squad car and murdered him. Evidence has come out after he left the force that he planted a firearm in the suspect's vehicle, the cover his story that he only fired on the suspect because he was reaching for a gun. He's now being charged for murder. 

it sounds like an example where the controls are actually working (the guilty party is being charged)

 

[visionary]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

We are.

What part of what I said caused confusion about that?

 

25 minutes ago, tshile said:

It's not. It's justification for physical force to be used against you, sometimes that results in death.

Sounds a lot less sensational, doesn't it? Doesn't quite play on your emotions the same as how you worded it.

There's a difference between a cop using force (especially when justified, as you said) and the result being the person died, and the cop deciding you deserve a death sentence and executed you.

Funny who chooses certain language and the other doesn't.

This is certainly an interesting interpretation of things.   

Quote

If you don't get why then you obviously don't understand the situation.

The cops are not authorized to kill people. They're authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves (and others). Knife, gun, fist, bat, it doesn't matter. You're allowed to defend yourself when attacked by another person. That's not a luxury only afforded to police, either (at least not in many states.)

You don't understand that?

Having a gun isn't the same as attacking someone, is it?  Can I claim self defense if I see someone with a gun and decide to hit them with a rock or shoot them myself?

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

This is certainly an interesting interpretation of things.   

Having a gun isn't the same as attacking someone, is it?  Can I claim self defense if I see someone with a gun and decide to hit them with a rock or shoot them myself?

It's interesting?

You describe it as a police officer deciding on giving a death sentence, and then executing a person on the spot.

I describe it as using physical force that sometimes results in death.

And to you, I'm the one with the interesting interpretation.

Christ.

Self defense laws vary by state, but in VA you can use deadly force to protect your life, or the life of another, if that life is in danger. The law doesn't say anything about you using a gun, or the other person using a gun, and it's done that way on purpose. It also doesn't say anything about being in your house, or someone being in your house, or any of the numerous incorrect nonsense I hear people say when trying to discuss self defense laws in this state. It's about deadly force, and whether your life (or the life of another) is in danger.