|
Trabisnikof posted:So only highly coordinated people are allowed to have reflexes, got it. Do you not understand what a reflex is?
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you not understand what a reflex is? I guess I wasn't being pedantic enough. While it may not be a "reflex" it was surely "reflexive." Nevertheless, my point being that picking up the gun doesn't mean he wanted to shoot the cops. He could have just not wanted to leave evidence for the cops, as many criminals do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I guess I wasn't being pedantic enough. While it may not be a "reflex" it was surely "reflexive." That's fine, but this is a case in which I will give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer. The guy has already threatened someone with a firearm, ran from the police, and just picked up a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I guess I wasn't being pedantic enough. While it may not be a "reflex" it was surely "reflexive." Reflexive means "done as a reflex", and no it surely was not. The point of the word, and why it can be used to excuse an action, is that it is an act performed without conscious thought or intent. Attempting to retrieve evidence of wrong-doing is most definitely something done with conscious thought and intent. Even if you were to say that you're using the word in the metaphorical sense of "an action you're so accustomed to it takes little thought", the statement "he got shot for a reflex" no longer means the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Hey, here's something we can all criticize together! The police don't like it when Waze users report on police locations. Not because it makes their speed traps less effective...no its totally because of assassinations.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sheriffs-want-popular-police-tracking-080441241.html posted:WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sheriffs are campaigning to pressure Google Inc. to turn off a feature on its Waze traffic software that warns drivers when police are nearby. They say one of the technology industry's most popular mobile apps could put officers' lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where their targets are parked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Ban all maps, what if a criminal uses a map to find a crime? Or chart a get away? Or look up where a school is to kill or rape children?!?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
quote:"There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your gun."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Greetings, This is Officer Daryl Sinestra from the Washington Police Department. I am writing to your theater to encourage you to refrain from showing the 1984 film The Terminator during your "Midnight Madness" event. This movie puts police officer lives at risk by featuring a detailed simulation of an assault on a police precinct by a killer cyborg from the future. Furthermore,
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
I love Waze. I let them track my movements because my movements are boring. When I go off the grid you will see my Waze profile suddenly riding the same bus all day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-man-attacked-police-officers-standing-hallway/ Did this one get posted yet? quote:Pittsburgh, PA — A disturbing video obtained by WPXI News shows two officers approach an otherwise completely peaceful man and begin to brutally assault him. They walk up on a black guy and grab him. I can't tell from the video if they immediately hit him or just like tried to grab his arm without having communicated a single thing about their intentions. Guy's busy with his phone and first thing he knows some dude is grabbing him. And they take him to the ground with batons. There's no other context that I can find, no statement from the police as to why this was allegedly done. Seems like there was some pre-existing justification for walking up on a dude who's paying them no attention and beating the poo poo out of him. I'm wondering if there's going to end up being an ugly history behind this incident or if it was just a completely random explosion that just happened to happen to this black guy. What's the tally on black vs white with incidents like this? How many times more does this happen to black people than white people? I don't know that I've ever seen a statistic on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-man-attacked-police-officers-standing-hallway/ It looks like there was some kind of security surrounding him. All but one of the people on either side of him are wearing the same thing and the other person differs by wearing a white shirt instead of blue. Most likely there is more to the story. The guy was probably asked to leave by whoever those people are in white/blue. Still doesn't explain why the LEOs show up and start swinging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-man-attacked-police-officers-standing-hallway/ Normally I'd be the first one to dismiss anything from freethoughtproject just because of the source, but that video looks damning as hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-man-attacked-police-officers-standing-hallway/ There's always google for these things. http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/01/26/Pittsburgh-police-reviewing-arrest-beating-of-man-in-halfway-house/stories/201501260181 quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Hey, here's something we can all criticize together! The police don't like it when Waze users report on police locations. Not because it makes their speed traps less effective...no its totally because of assassinations. There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your What I'm saying is that we need to ban households. Did you know that 100% of criminals come from households?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:What I'm saying is that we need to ban households. Did you know that 100% of criminals come from households? All criminals are born. Solution: ban birth 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Not true. "For statistical purposes in the United Kingdom, a household is defined as "one person or a group of people who have the accommodation as their only or main residence and for a group, either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation, that is, a living room or sitting room"."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:He does not turn towards the cop, he turns to grab his gun that he dropped. you're missing the part where it's not just officer safety, it's also public safety. Going to go out on a limb and guess that will be the claim here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you're missing the part where it's not just officer safety, it's also public safety. Going to go out on a limb and guess that will be the claim here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I sure am glad that being irrationally angry over a breakup is now punishable by death. If the guy was waving his gun or threatening the cop, I can see him being shot. Otherwise, gently caress no. Chase him down and take him into custody. Then again, cops these days (at least where I love) all seem to be massively out of shape...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
This country is really weird in that guns are seen an unquestionable civil liberty and you should be using them to save your life in many different instances, but just the fear of them (if this guy had dropped and picked up a "gun like object" or made a motion that could indicate he was drawing a weapon the result would be exactly the same) is used to excuse any sort of extra judicial excursion which is the harshest punishment our system can deliver. I think it really gets back into certain types of people aren't supposed to be the ones owning guns and this is trying at least on a subconscious level to rectify that problem where unofficially the punishment of gun ownership is death if you meet certain qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
tezcat posted:At least this argument makes more sense than a cop lying about having a gun pointed at him. Why do you assume a lie instead of human error in perception during stressful incidents?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I sure am glad that being irrationally angry over a breakup is now punishable by death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Why do you assume a lie instead of human error in perception during stressful incidents?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Probably for the same reason you won't do the same for the victim. But suffice to say you are welcome to disagree. Thankfully we have video to show the officer is so mental he cant even be trusted to do basic visual checks in a stress environment. That should be enough to get his badge pulled through it won't No, the victim shouldn't be accused of lying if his memory/testimony doesn't match up with video either. No one (officer, citizen, or otherwise) has accurate recall of events. Human perception and memory is inherently and fatally flawed, which is why eyewitness accounts are terrible and shouldn't be trusted, but also why when someone on either side says something you should generally assume misperception and misrecall rather than active lying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, the victim shouldn't be accused of lying if his memory/testimony doesn't match up with video either. No one (officer, citizen, or otherwise) has accurate recall of events. Human perception and memory is inherently and fatally flawed, which is why eyewitness accounts are terrible and shouldn't be trusted, but also why when someone on either side says something you should generally assume misperception and misrecall rather than active lying. Unless he knows he hosed up and is in cover your rear end mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
tezcat posted:More of a reason a cop with legal training and we can only assume your level of common sense to keep his mouth shut until the video was released like other officers in similare situations. People (cops included) don't generally understand that their perception of events isn't actually a good record of what happened. It's part of why cops (like you) assume people who testify contrary to evidence are lying, even though they're usually just misperceiving and misrecalling. Only real assholes assume people are lying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Only real assholes assume people are lying. Not an assumption considering the video evidence. Or he is retarded, cross eyed in dire need of glasses or possibly mentally defective which is certainly a trend in police officers shooting brown people holding a gun in any circumstances. I mean why else would one execute a 12 year old and lie about it. Bonus points on the officer lying about that video too stating they issued orders 3 times when he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Probably for the same reason you won't do the same for the victim. But suffice to say you are welcome to disagree. Thankfully we have video to show the officer is so mental he cant even be trusted to do basic visual checks in a stress environment. That should be enough to get his badge pulled through it won't Because you don't get a pass on behavior resulting from stress induced by running from the cops after you got caught with the illegal handgun you threatened someone with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because you don't get a pass on behavior resulting from stress induced by running from the cops after you got caught with the illegal handgun you threatened someone with? So he totally deserved to get shot in the back while running
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:So he totally deserved to get shot in the back while running Brilliant counter! You've come up with a clever argument against something that not only did I never say but never even happened!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Not an assumption considering the video evidence. Or he is retarded, cross eyed in dire need of glasses or possibly mentally defective which is certainly a trend in police officers shooting brown people holding a gun in any circumstances. What part of "people and cameras perceive things differently in the moment" do you not understand? Cops, despite your idiocy, are people, and will experience events like people do. This isn't really something you can "train out" of people. Someone's running away from you after you found their gun, they drop it, turn around, and grab it - it doesn't make you a liar to have your brain tell you "he's going for his gun to shoot me!" and remember it that way even if the camera differs. The Cleveland one, well, sometimes people do lie. It's almost like we, as humans, can understand the difference instead of assuming people lie because of their profession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Cops, despite your idiocy, are people, and will experience events like people do.  quote:It's almost like we, as humans, can understand the difference instead of assuming people lie because of their profession. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he lied because he knows hes going to catch hell for shooting on a fleeing suspect. When pressed for information he said what every gun nut retard says "he was going for my/his gun/fake gun/gunlike object" instead of what Actus said which would be, yaknow...reasonable. To late for him to change what he said now. He tipped his hand to show that hes just covering his own rear end or was hallucinating under stress and needs to be institutionalized. Maybe he needs a seminar run by the police chief and the walmart guy who got tackled. Both of those guys showed incredible restraint against people that assaulted them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
I know you don't believe it, but quite a few of those "gun nuts retards" did think they were going for their guns. That's a failure of perception, not a lie. A lie would be if he thought he wasn't going for his gun and decided to shoot him anyway. Is that what you're saying happened?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I know you don't believe it, but quite a few of those "gun nuts retards" did think they were going for their guns. That's a failure of perception, not a lie. A lie would be if he thought he wasn't going for his gun and decided to shoot him anyway. Is that what you're saying happened? tezcat fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
tezcat posted:You're not reading again. I'll help you. Third paragraph after the "or". So every human being needs to be institutionalized because they exhibit imperfect perception under stress? Because that is true - essentially no one can accurately recall events and particularly not when stressful situations are involved. Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So every human being needs to be institutionalized because they exhibit imperfect perception under stress? Because that is true - essentially no one can accurately recall events and particularly not when stressful situations are involved. Right now we have people as young as 7 being shot dead and the thing that ties them together is "hes/shes reaching for my gun". Likewise you have goons in this very thread that state that having a gun in your hands makes you a target for lethal force despite no hostile actions being taken against the shooter by the victim. This falls right in light with 12 year old being shot dead before they even have a chance to register what happened. And of course we have pretty much every officer saying they were compliant with procedure when they were not after examining video evidence (Rice, Crawford, Walker, Garner). So I would like you to explain to me and the thread what exactly is your problem with wanting to make sure no one can murder children or anyone else because they claim "they were going for my/their gun/gun-like-object".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
tezcat posted:
I find this an interesting point. scenario: Cop slams you to the ground, your thinking "What the gently caress Dude". Your in pain, and you move to a more comfortable position. Cop decides to pull his pistol, and you move your hands to keep the weapon from being pointed at you. ( a natural reaction) Guess what, YOUR hosed, cop can kill you now because "he reached for my weapon" .
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Why would a cop ever slam me anywhere? I'm not a criminal, I can't relate! If you don't want bad things to happen to you don't be a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
tezcat posted:
That's not quite what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Less military dudebros with AR15s and tacticool doing swat raids. MRAP for patrolling the neiberhood? y'alls dont need that lol. Detroit is bad but it aint Iraq. And more accountability. RIP guy in Walmart shot for holding toy gun in an open carry state. America of peace and prosperity. My 2 cent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:55
|
|