|
Trabisnikof posted:We'll see if he pleads down, but he's currently charged with "first-degree murder, weapons and child endangerment charges" and also after reading the wording in this article, I see how the cops are going to CYA: Well most everyone seems to be assuming she didn't die with the first rounds. If she was obviously dead at the time of the kid transfer then trying to talk him down seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. It also should not at all be surprising they were much less willing to gun him down and I'm not sure why people think it's because he's a cop. Quite literally everyone would have a harder time shooting a friend than someone they don't know, even in completely justifiable situations. I mean that's just basic human nature. The fact he had a gun to his head after the first round of bullets makes me guess he knew he killed her.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Obviously in a perfect world she doesn't get murdered; but after that happens, it seems like your best possible outcome is a peaceful surrender with no other shots fired, and nobody else hurt, and the bad guy charged with murder, and they managed to do that. Strikes me as a situation that could've ended a whole lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Don't flash your brights at a police car with it's highbeams on, you'll end up dead. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/#TjcBd73bDaD72RQY.16
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:Don't flash your brights at a police car with it's highbeams on, you'll end up dead. I wonder how the apologists will try to spin this into the kid deserving to be killed. Probably blame him for not knowing to dive face first at the ground when a cop waves his dick at you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I'm glad everything is fixed now that cops are wearing body cams!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:I'm glad everything is fixed now that cops are wearing body cams! It's a shame the camera malfunctioned at precisely the point where it would've been really helpful to see what actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Haha, and you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? Yes, you do argue in bad faith, try to keep up
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It's a shame the camera malfunctioned at precisely the point where it would've been really helpful to see what actually happened. Heh, yeah, malfunctioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Here's your daily dose of rage. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/16/white-cop-grabs-black-tween-by-her-neck-and-slams-her-against-his-squad-car.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well most everyone seems to be assuming she didn't die with the first rounds. If she was obviously dead at the time of the kid transfer then trying to talk him down seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. It also should not at all be surprising they were much less willing to gun him down and I'm not sure why people think it's because he's a cop. Quite literally everyone would have a harder time shooting a friend than someone they don't know, even in completely justifiable situations. I mean that's just basic human nature. Cops handcuff obviously dead unarmed people to protect themselves from a possible reanimated zombie. Assuming she was dead is absurd. The only person who should declare that is a someone medically trained.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Whoa, holy poo poo. I saw something about cops breaking some 12 year old's jaw at a pool party and assumed it was just more stuff coming to light about McKinney but it's actually an unrelated event that also happened recently? How many pool parties really need the cops to come forcibly detain children?? I didn't see it in this thread, apologies if it was a few pages back. http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/fairfield-pool/
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well most everyone seems to be assuming she didn't die with the first rounds. If she was obviously dead at the time of the kid transfer then trying to talk him down seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. It also should not at all be surprising they were much less willing to gun him down and I'm not sure why people think it's because he's a cop. Quite literally everyone would have a harder time shooting a friend than someone they don't know, even in completely justifiable situations. I mean that's just basic human nature. There's really no way to tell if the woman was dead from the first salvo without really obvious indicators like "head no longer attached" or "large chunks of brain splattered around" or "still-beating heart clutched in her husband's hand." People can be motionless and filled with bullet holes and still not actually be dead. People have survived more than a dozen gunshot wounds before, at the same time as people have died of one shot to the chest. There's even been survivals of rifle wounds to the head in the past. Death by gunshot is pretty random and you can't make more than a good guess without medical attention. For all we and the officers knew, the woman was mortally wounded and bleeding to death when the second set of shots was fired. For all they know, she was still alive after the second and died during the 30 minutes of careful negotiation to avoid having to harm a fellow cop who's murdering people right in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Whoa, holy poo poo. I saw something about cops breaking some 12 year old's jaw at a pool party and assumed it was just more stuff coming to light about McKinney but it's actually an unrelated event that also happened recently? How many pool parties really need the cops to come forcibly detain children?? It's crazy that people see this poo poo and say things like "why don't they just follow orders", it's loving clear as gently caress they're terrified of police. Holding onto a fence when you're being tackled and beat isn't some kind moral stance or refusal to follow orders, it's a fear response. They're holding on to something for fear of being dragged away and beat or killed, which is exactly what will happen to them. That's also why innocent people run or struggle when they're being restrained, they're afraid for their loving lives!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:Don't flash your brights at a police car with it's highbeams on, you'll end up dead. Assuming that the cop did not have his brights on, he states that his vehicles low-beam lights are bright enough that he had already cited two other drivers that night for the exact same thing. Maybe that would provide some additional context when dealing with a kid who came to the same conclusion as two other motorists on that same shift? Or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Kreg posted:Assuming that the cop did not have his brights on, he states that his vehicles low-beam lights are bright enough that he had already cited two other drivers that night for the exact same thing. Maybe that would provide some additional context when dealing with a kid who came to the same conclusion as two other motorists on that same shift? The kid didn't immediately submit to the officer's power, it was a threat so he deserved to die. It's animalistic, standing up for yourself is seen as a threat to officers, they want total domination over everyone they interact with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Whoa, holy poo poo. I saw something about cops breaking some 12 year old's jaw at a pool party and assumed it was just more stuff coming to light about McKinney but it's actually an unrelated event that also happened recently? How many pool parties really need the cops to come forcibly detain children?? There was a thread many years ago where I lost track of which black high school student in prison in the state of Georgia for having sex with his white girlfriend we were talking about. It seems to be a common hazard when talking about race and the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:Don't flash your brights at a police car with it's highbeams on, you'll end up dead. I'm somewhat skeptical of this story only because it's so beyond hosed up that there has to be more to it than what was reported in the article. A teenager politely and legally flashes his lights at a passing cop because he (maybe mistakenly) thought the cop's high beams were on. He is then pulled over for no reason, correctly and nonviolently exercises his constitutional rights, is subsequently tased, the camera then "malfunctions" and the unarmed kid ends up dead with seven bullets in him? And no charges were filed? Are you loving kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I'm somewhat skeptical of this story only because it's so beyond hosed up that there has to be more to it than what was reported in the article. http://filmingcops.com/cop-shoots-and-kills-dog-that-is-tied-up-in-its-own-yard-2/
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I'm somewhat skeptical of this story only because it's so beyond hosed up that there has to be more to it than what was reported in the article. Seeing how the cop apparently ticketed 2 other people for doing the same thing that night, I'm not too surprised he took offense at someone contesting the ticket. Also the kid's cellphone video cut out at the same time that the body cam "malfunctions" too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:correctly and nonviolently exercises his constitutional rights
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:Clearly the kid didn't need to be shot, but a US driver refusing to give their license to a police officer, is a "Your police car has gold fringe" level of correctly exercising Constitutional rights. Especially given the recent Supreme Court ruling. A police officer can pull you over for no reason to request your license? I thought that there had to be a justifiable reason for the stop in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Continuing from my last post, I know that special treatment among employees and similar people isn't unusual. The problem is that policework is a job that involves being handed various weapons (including guns) and the license to use force (up to and including lethal force) at your own discretion, something entirely unique. It makes special treatment or poorer treatment of certain people way, way worse than in other jobs because now the special treatment involves "This person is more deserving of life than this other person." Instead of just giving someone a buddy discount or filling out their boring paperwork for them, you're now including "I'll kill these guys for lesser crimes but not you when you're shooting your ex-wife right in front of me" among it. This was clearly the wrong decision on their part, but for gently caress's sakes of course the cops are going to be more hesitant to pull the trigger on someone who is their friend versus someone who is a stranger; short of replacing cops with robots thats always going to be the case. Its like people in this thread don't understand how human beings interact with each other. Rhesus Pieces posted:I'm somewhat skeptical of this story only because it's so beyond hosed up that there has to be more to it than what was reported in the article. What are you talking about? Deliberately flashing your brights at someone is a ticket-able offense in many states (and since this cop wrote two for that offense already I'm inclined to think also in the state this is filmed), you don't have a right to refuse to give identification when operating a motor vehicle, and he both refused to comply with legal orders then resisted when the cop forced compliance. The shooting is a different issue altogether though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:A police officer can pull you over for no reason to request your license? I thought that there had to be a justifiable reason for the stop in the first place? There was a recent Supreme Court case that ruled that its still justifiable if the cop thinks you broke the law but the thing you were doing wasn't actually illegal. So long as the cop honest-cross-my-heart believed it was a justifiable reason for a stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There was a recent Supreme Court case that ruled that its still justifiable if the cop thinks you broke the law but the thing you were doing wasn't actually illegal. So long as the cop honest-cross-my-heart believed it was a justifiable reason for a stop. yeah also this
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Clearly the kid didn't need to be shot, but... Hearing this way too much lately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This was clearly the wrong decision on their part, but for gently caress's sakes of course the cops are going to be more hesitant to pull the trigger on someone who is their friend versus someone who is a stranger; short of replacing cops with robots thats always going to be the case. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and just suppose that departmental regulations address active shooters who are firing at a victim and the proper response. I'm also gonna' hazard a guess that these same departmental regulations don't have an addendum that stipulates policy can be ignored when the active shooter in question is a member of the department.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:A teenager politely and legally flashes his lights at a passing cop because he (maybe mistakenly) thought the cop's high beams were on. He is then pulled over for no reason, correctly and nonviolently exercises his constitutional rights Flashing high-beams in to oncoming traffic at night is against Michigan's (as well as most states) traffic laws, even for a "courtesy flash". It's a lawful reason for a stop, and during the course of a traffic stop a driver may be ordered from the vehicle at any time. You do not have a right to refuse a lawful order to exit your vehicle. It's also a misconception that high-beam flashing is "protected speech" and in no way violates the traffic laws. The federal case people get that from had nothing to do with the specific traffic laws pertaining to high-beam usage during night time hours. The judge specifically noted flashing lights during daylight hours to warn other drivers of a speed trap was "protected speech" and that drivers couldn't be charged with obstruction of the speed enforcement. The judge purposefully didn't touch the high-beam law. edit - beaten!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Why do fat old white people hate pool parties?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Hearing this way too much lately. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:You would hear it less if people would stop saying objectively wrong things. You wouldn't hear a peep from me if the conversation was just "That's hosed up" (because it is). If you want to argue that you can declare your actions lawful and refuse to give up a license while driving, you are just wrong. It's the pedantic handling of the minor issue obsfucating(sic) the larger more disturbing issue that likely grinds people's nerves. I'm not lumping you in, but there's a whole slew of article commenters elsewhere who will argue very minor and ultimately non-consequential details when it comes to police shootings. It comes off as very pro-cop without any nod at levity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:You would hear it less if people would stop saying objectively wrong things. You wouldn't hear a peep from me if the conversation was just "That's hosed up" (because it is). If you want to argue that you can declare your actions lawful and refuse to give up a license while driving, you are just wrong. I'd also hear it a lot less if police didn't use deadly force as their default response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This was clearly the wrong decision on their part, but for gently caress's sakes of course the cops are going to be more hesitant to pull the trigger on someone who is their friend versus someone who is a stranger; short of replacing cops with robots thats always going to be the case. What is your argument, here? You say "of course they're going to be more hesitant" but this is what happened (from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/16/officer-shooting-ex-wife/28819983/): quote:Once Philip Seidle stopped shooting, he put his gun to his head and started walking around her vehicle, police said. Officers, who were nearby investigating an unrelated motor-vehicle accident, started talking to him and got him to allow them to take his daughter out of his SUV. So which is the part where they were understandably too hesitant? Was it when they didn't try to help the woman who was shot? Was it when they didn't stop the guy from shooting at his ex-wife, again? Was it when they took 30 minutes trying to talk the guy down from hurting himself while the woman he shot multiple times was bleeding out in the car? They weren't "hesitant" in pulling the trigger. They didn't hesitate. They didn't do it. They placed the life of the cop above the woman he murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:I'd also hear it a lot less if police didn't use deadly force as their default response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Clearly the kid didn't need to be shot, but a US driver refusing to give their license to a police officer, is a "Your police car has gold fringe" level of correctly exercising Constitutional rights. Especially given the recent Supreme Court ruling. and thus he deserved 7 bullets
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:True, though I can correct people on SA about people's Constitutional rights relatively easily, and we could theoretically reach a state where people stop saying wrong things, but it's extremely difficult for me to stop the police from murdering people all the time. If someone thinks a good way to reduce the "A bad thing happened, but you are factually incorrect" posts is to reduce police murder, I highly encourage them to go out and do that. Didn't mean to single you out, but I'm just sick of hearing that disclaimer before sentences. "Shouldn't have been shot but... ...was wearing a hoodie ...ran away ...playing with a toy gun ...didn't immediately comply ...ad nauseam Condiv posted:and thus he deserved 7 bullets I don't think that's what he meant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
So there were errors in the article, as I suspected? The article strongly implied that flashing your high beams was legal and the original stop was unjustified. That's actually pretty bizarre to me since my state's driving manual explicitly recommends flashing your high beams at an oncoming car with its brights on. Still, flashing your high beams in a backwards-rear end state where that sort of thing is illegal and then acting like a pedantic poo poo over your rights should never end up costing you your life, for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:I'm glad everything is fixed now that cops are wearing body cams! People were always idiots to want this. Its exactly the sort of non solution you would expect a thread/nation full of liberal reformist dipshits to generate because for all the crying and whining they still fundamentally believe the core system is sound and police brutality is just a case where things are rough around the edges or whatever. A lack of real evidence was never and never will be the actual reason cops aren't held accountable and the only change to that formula introduced by body cameras is that its easier for reactionaries to justify brutality because of some meaningless twitch or "sudden movement" that they can pretend to notice whenever the videos surface. See: virtually everything Jarmak says. Oh well that and the ever expanding surveillance state I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also the kid's cellphone video cut out at the same time that the body cam "malfunctions" too. Clearly there was some sort of EMP attack happening at the same time as the incident. How do we know that he actually died of the gunshots? How do we know that he didn't have a pacemaker?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:What is your argument, here? You say "of course they're going to be more hesitant" but this is what happened (from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/16/officer-shooting-ex-wife/28819983/): Like are you loving autistic? Killing your friend is not an easy thing to do. They made a bad decision and deserve some measure of punishment for it but the page plus of circle-jerking about how this illustrates the racism of the police because a couple of cops didn't kill their friend immediately is loving pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Woozy posted:People were always idiots to want this. Its exactly the sort of non solution you would expect a thread/nation full of liberal reformist dipshits to generate because for all the crying and whining they still fundamentally believe the core system is sound and police brutality is just a case where things are rough around the edges or whatever. A lack of real evidence was never and never will be the actual reason cops aren't held accountable and the only change to that formula introduced by body cameras is that its easier for reactionaries to justify brutality because of some meaningless twitch or "sudden movement" that they can pretend to notice whenever the videos surface. See: virtually everything Jarmak says. I definitely am on board with what you are saying but it seems to me that it will be easier in the long run to demonstrate that the abuse is systemic if there is a predictable and blatant series of gaps in the record.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 00:02
|
|