|
Jarmak posted:When did I say that? Well, I guess I just assumed you don't care because you're not decrying their use of force, instead you seem to say thing like this... Jarmak posted:Uh.. yeah? did you even watch it? The last thing you see before the camera goes all cat in a washing machine is the kid running at the cop. You assume the kid ran at the cop instead of assuming the kid was running away, the video didn't indicate which interaction was more plausible, yet you're certain that's what happened. Why is that? Because you don't think police are abusing their power? Why aren't you against their actions when it's clear they see people as animals who deserve punishment when they don't follow orders?
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:That's what I thought. You have to adjust to low beams when approaching traffic is within 500ft and you can't blast a car from behind with your high beams when within 300 feet. There's nothing there specifically preventing you from quickly flashing your lights at an approaching car blinding you with its high beams, as is explicitly recommended in the driving manual. The driving manual has no legal significance. If the law says you can't use your high beams within 500ft then unless the laws makes an exception for signaling, which it doesn't, they can give you a ticket if you turn on your high beams within 500ft. of oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
The cop is a douche, even if he didn't murder an unarmed kid, for pulling people over for the perfectly normal behavior of letting others know they forgot their high beams on. These weren't people driving around blinding people. He was purposely baiting people into flashing him then writing them tickets. There are plenty of laws that exist which aren't enforced for perfectly acceptable social behavior. The high beam laws is for the jackoffs who drive with their highbeams on when their lowbeam filament burnt out. Defending the highbeam enforcer reminds me of those officers harassing some citizen group meeting with rulers writing tickets if you were a smidge over 12" from the curb. Completely useful law for people blocking the street used in a completely absurd and douchy way. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPZxRWxxm4 Some people just love hiding behind the letter of the law to absolve their authority figures. DARPA fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
I didn't assume anything, I can use my eyes and see it, even the news coverage makes mention that the video shows this. Also there's a world of difference between thinking police culture dehumanizes the public too much (although its inevitable this will happen to some extent) and saying dumb poo poo like this in reference to that video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The driving manual has no legal significance. If the law says you can't use your high beams within 500ft then unless the laws makes an exception for signaling, which it doesn't, they can give you a ticket if you turn on your high beams within 500ft. of oncoming traffic. I don't think it really matters whether it's legal or not, our system isn't designed to allow people to argue what's legal or not with law enforcement officers. He should have given his license and registration and then gone to court, but that isn't the problem. Why are you so adamant about proving what the kid did was illegal? The officer was clearly not enjoying being questioned by a 17 year old, he got mad and killed the kid, why does it matter if the kid was actually wrong about the law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The driving manual has no legal significance. If the law says you can't use your high beams within 500ft then unless the laws makes an exception for signaling, which it doesn't, they can give you a ticket if you turn on your high beams within 500ft. of oncoming traffic. Which, of course, means he deserved to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I didn't assume anything, I can use my eyes and see it, even the news coverage makes mention that the video shows this. So you think it's totally normal to yell at people and bark orders at them when all they're doing is asking questions or are clearly confused? Why do you think it's dumb that I have a problem with the way they treat the public?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Seriously? The point you're trying to make is quibbling over whether its more appropriate to call them "friends" or "acquaintances"? Presumably this is one of the "hard decisions" that cops are always talking about having to make. But they didn't make it, because getting killed is for civilians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't think it really matters whether it's legal or not, our system isn't designed to allow people to argue what's legal or not with law enforcement officers. He should have given his license and registration and then gone to court, but that isn't the problem. Why are you so adamant about proving what the kid did was illegal? The officer was clearly not enjoying being questioned by a 17 year old, he got mad and killed the kid, why does it matter if the kid was actually wrong about the law? Dr Pepper posted:Which, of course, means he deserved to die. Yes the conversation with the poster from CT, a different state then MI, about whether he can get pulled over for doing this in CT, is totally me secretly trying to say that because he broke a CT law while driving in MI he deserved to die, good catch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes the conversation with the poster from CT, a different state then MI, about whether he can get pulled over for doing this in CT, is totally me secretly trying to say that because he broke a CT law while driving in MI he deserved to die, good catch. Yes it does when you're excusing a cop for shooting someone over a petty potential traffic violation. It doesn't matter if the kid broke any laws. No law he could have broken carries the penalty of "Dragged out of your car and shot seven times"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Yes it does when you're excusing a cop for shooting someone over a petty potential traffic violation. good thing I'm not doing that then? edit: It takes a special kind of stupid to double down on this stupidity even after its been pointed out that the conversation they decided to quote wasn't even about the incident they're upset about Jarmak fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Seriously? The point you're trying to make is quibbling over whether its more appropriate to call them "friends" or "acquaintances"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:good thing I'm not doing that then? So then why are you arguing about it if not to justify the actions of the officer? Why are you arguing about how difficult it is to kill someone you know if not to justify the actions of the officers who stood by and did nothing? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
I beg you to stop letting yourselves be fishmeched by sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So then why are you arguing about it if not to justify what happened to the kid? Cause Rhesus Pieces asked me for a link about it? tentative8e8op posted:Even though it is a difficult situation no one should ever have to be in, I think their doing nothing while their coworker killed his fleeing wife is totally unexcusable. They're sworn police officers, and they have more responsibility to deal with such actual-murder-happening situations than non-officers. To do effectively nothing during his shooting, when he re-begins shooting at her, and then when he refused to let emergency personnel near her, is simply terrible. So again yeah, I only was bitching about people circle jerking about "this is how white people/cops get treated" and calling this an example of preferential treatment, I agree they should be punished for failing to do their duty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So again yeah, I only was bitching about people circle jerking about "this is how white people/cops get treated" and calling this an example of preferential treatment, I agree they should be punished for failing to do their duty. If there was no preferential treatment here, then exactly how did they fail to do their duty 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Seriously? The point you're trying to make is quibbling over whether its more appropriate to call them "friends" or "acquaintances"? Yeah I'm "quibbling" over it you disingenuous poo poo because your entire argument was that it's emotionally difficult to kill your friends so we shouldn't be so hard on those poor cops when you have no idea if that was the case. All we know for sure was that the responding cops knew that the guy who went berserk and shot his ex wife in front of their kid was also a cop. Edit: haha I forgot for a minute that you've never made an argument in good faith in your life. Lemming fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I beg you to stop letting yourselves be fishmeched by sociopaths. I drank a V-8 then hit the Ignore button.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Trabisnikof directly compared this to the Tamir Rice shooting, so I don’t see how what I said is inaccurate. Weird, because he brings up something that happened during Tamir Rice's shooting (but that was not, directly, Tamir Rice's shooting) as an example. Dead Reckoning posted:It’s a stupid comparison. First, no one is defending the Tamir Rice shooting as an example of fine police work where everything went right. It’s currently under investigation, and pretty much everyone agrees that the officer was too quick to shoot. Half the people who were complaining that the police are too eager to get into gunfights are now mad that two patrol officers didn’t make a snap judgement to open fire on a hostage situation in the middle of a residential street. Trying to say, “oh, they only showed restraint because it was another cop” is dumb, because there are a dozen different factors that made the two situations different. It’s not even the same department. But some posters are so bent on making this a with-us-or-against us thing that they can’t look at a situation where some officers did their level best to deescalate a volatile scenario without shooting, the thing that everyone agrees the police should do more often, without getting mad that some different cops in a different city failed to do that. Because there are a huge amount of factors that made this different! Because we know, factually, that this guy was loving dangerous! He had already proved he was dangerous by shooting dudes! But suddenly, when it's a cop involved and not some random black dude, you are far, far more concerned about the cops using empathy and caring about the victim than you ever have been about any other police shooting/action, because they are always right. You've been focused so hard over the previous killings that "it is completely correct to blow someone away if there is a perceived threat, even if it turns out there is no threat". In this case, it's not just a perceived threat, it is a definitely loving real threat, people are upset because it's really strange how cops are way more threatened by Random Black Guy Who Might Be Doing Something Suspicious than Actual Violent Threat Who Happens To Be A Cop, andddddd you're like "B-B-BUT EMPATHY!" Based on what you've said (that cops are totally correct in putting holes in things that can reasonably be perceived to be a threat)... is the violent cop less of a threat than Random Black Guy Who Might Be Doing Something Suspicious?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:You assume the kid ran at the cop instead of assuming the kid was running away, the video didn't indicate which interaction was more plausible, yet you're certain that's what happened. Why is that? Because you don't think police are abusing their power? Why aren't you against their actions when it's clear they see people as animals who deserve punishment when they don't follow orders? I don't agree with Jarmak with a ton of stuff but I do clearly see the kid running at the cop in the last few moments. I can see both the cop and the kid. This is at around 5:24 of the video. When you're arguing about this stuff it's important to be factual with what's in the video. Otherwise people start nitpicking what you're saying because you're wrong about one detail and stop listening. It looked like the cop was pissed off because he started out saying, "no you're wrong, I did not have my high beams on", but then goes on to say that, yes, his headlights are new and kinda bright and he's already pulled two other people over for daring to give a poo poo about public safety. He didn't have to instantly put the situation into an argumentative one when he already knows what's up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah I'm "quibbling" over it you disingenuous poo poo because your entire argument was that it's emotionally difficult to kill your friends so we shouldn't be so hard on those poor cops when you have no idea if that was the case. All we know for sure was that the responding cops knew that the guy who went berserk and shot his ex wife in front of their kid was also a cop. Its also much more difficult to kill people who are acquaintances, as I already said I used the word "friends" because that's the word that the people bitching about preferential treatment were using and I took it at face value. Toasticle posted:Close, the answer is since he was a cop he knew his buddies weren't going to shoot him and they knew he wasn't going to shoot them so no need to poo poo pants and ventilate him. Plus he was busy pumping his wife full of bullets so he was no danger (to the cops) But yes in the back and forth of "look at these cops giving special treatment to their buddies", "its a pretty natural reaction to not want to shoot your friends and not nefarious", and "haha you have no proof they're friends" you've got me, well played. I like the new trend in this thread of calling any argument you don't like bad faith, its a refreshing change of pace from just shouting down any argument you don't like with calling people boot-lickers
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The driving manual has no legal significance. If the law says you can't use your high beams within 500ft then unless the laws makes an exception for signaling, which it doesn't, they can give you a ticket if you turn on your high beams within 500ft. of oncoming traffic. What you linked doesn't specifically say you can't use your high beams, it just says you have to switch to your low beams if your high beams are on when someone is within 500 feet coming towards you; so according to what is actually written it should be fine to quickly turn on your high beams as long as you then switch to low beams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
soscannonballs posted:What you linked doesn't specifically say you can't use your high beams, it just says you have to switch to your low beams if your high beams are on when someone is within 500 feet coming towards you; so according to what is actually written it should be fine to quickly turn on your high beams as long as you then switch to low beams. The law doesn't actually work like leprechaun wishes, this wouldn't work for the same reason turning them off then back on and claiming "the text of the law doesn't actually say I have to keep them off!" wouldn't work. edit: also these are things that would be argued in front of a judge, it wouldn't invalidate a stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its also much more difficult to kill people who are acquaintances, as I already said I used the word "friends" because that's the word that the people bitching about preferential treatment were using and I took it at face value. Which is you shifting the goal posts and it was not your original argument. I also don't call any argument I don't like bad faith, and I don't call people in general bootlickers, just a few specific ones, like you and Dead Reckoning, because you are both disingenuous boot lickers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Yeah the law is pretty clear that you can't use your highbeams in oncoming traffic, as is the next section specifying summary execution by no less than seven gunshots as the penalty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Which is you shifting the goal posts and it was not your original argument. I also don't call any argument I don't like bad faith, and I don't call people in general bootlickers, just a few specific ones, like you and Dead Reckoning, because you are both disingenuous boot lickers. I haven't shifted anything, here I'll replace the word "friend", same exact point still applies, and Its been the same point I've been arguing consistently throughout. 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 they know versus someone who is a stranger; short of replacing cops with robots thats always going to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I haven't shifted anything, here I'll replace the word "friend", same exact point still applies, and Its been the same point I've been arguing consistently throughout. Protect the officer; gently caress the wife. That's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah the law is pretty clear that you can't use your highbeams in oncoming traffic, as is the next section specifying summary execution by no less than seven gunshots as the penalty. for reference, this is what an actual bad faith argument looks like. Although it is somewhat amusing to watch a whole new round of people quote a sidebar with Rhesus Pieces about CT law and make smug remarks about it justifying a shooting in MI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
The cop explicitly stated that 3 other people flashed him that night meaning he knew perfectly loving well there was no good reason to stop the kid to begin with other than to blow off steam about it. Hrm gee whiz other drivers are annoyed and blinded by the headlights on this car should talk to the department about it or murder a kid. Gosh these life and death moral decisions are soooooo haaaard ;_;
Woozy fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:for reference, this is what an actual bad faith argument looks like. What are you talking about : I'm agreeing with you, if the kid had followed the law he wouldn't have been shot, what's the problem here besides this kid's outrageous disrespect for highway safety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
This thread is such a cop hating circlejerk you guys why can't we ever discuss anything in nuance oh hey look its the voice of psycopathy Jarmak to derail for another 3 pages hrm didnt mods used to do something about this back when they weren't too busy sucking up to GiP and FYAD (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I haven't shifted anything, here I'll replace the word "friend", same exact point still applies, and Its been the same point I've been arguing consistently throughout. That's a completely different argument and obviously, glaringly wrong. So yes, it is shifting the goal posts. The context in which you know someone is extremely important. If you know someone as a serial murderer you'd be more likely to shoot them. In this case, all we know is the officers knew he was also a cop. This is probably the reason why they didn't even try to save the woman, and is not a case of cops being emotionless robots, it's a case of their valuing the life of a fellow officer over a shooting victim and is extremely hosed up. It's a problem with cops, not a problem with humans in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
The wife had the car's highbeams on so the other cops thought it was a clean kill
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
I mean, she did hit a parked car first, none of this would have happened if she had kept proper distance while turning, just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Lemming posted:That's a completely different argument and obviously, glaringly wrong. So yes, it is shifting the goal posts. The context in which you know someone is extremely important. If you know someone as a serial murderer you'd be more likely to shoot them. In the context of arguing about preferential treatment its pretty loving implied that "know someone to be a serial murder/ know and hate them/ know and want to kill them" is not included in the context. gently caress I'd say its still much harder to pull a trigger on even someone you know and hate because of the humanization factor being stronger then the hating someone factor. And the fact that you think that is obviously glaring wrong kind of proves the second point I made in that quote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:The wife had the car's highbeams on so the other cops thought it was a clean kill 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:In the context of arguing about preferential treatment its pretty loving implied that "know someone to be a serial murder/ know and hate them/ know and want to kill them" is not included in the context. gently caress I'd say its still much harder to pull a trigger on even someone you know and hate because of the humanization factor being stronger then the hating someone factor. Sure buddy people are less likely to kill people they know in any sense, as backed up by evidence you are supplying like: Oh right you have none. Guess you don't care about facts so much after all. Here's some: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html Not the same sort of case case, but it sure seems like more often than not if you're killed it's by someone you know. Guess it's not much of a deterrent! Except if you're a cop and you know they're a cop. Then you give them the benefit of the doubt. Which is the entire point and the one you keep strenuously denying. Side note: the only person who died was the ex wife. I leave whether or not the shooter knew her as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The cop explicitly stated that 3 other people flashed him that night meaning he knew perfectly loving well there was no good reason to stop the kid to begin with other than to blow off steam about it. Hrm gee whiz other drivers are annoyed and blinded by the headlights on this car should talk to the department about it or murder a kid. Gosh these life and death moral decisions are soooooo haaaard ;_; We cant see what happens after his tasering very well, but it looked like he really did charge at the officer. If he did so while trying to disarm/fight the officer, and not simply running away, then I dont have as much of a problem with the shooting itself as much as I do with the officer's mis-escalation and mishandling of his initial situation.  I'm very curious what the dash camera and investigation will show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
i'm going to offer the controversial opinion that tasing is not the proper response to a young person attempting to exercise their quickly eroding consitutional rights i have no sympathy for anybody who starts to fear for their life after somebody responds to their wanton abuse of authority with violence
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:i'm going to offer the controversial opinion that tasing is not the proper response to a young person attempting to exercise their quickly eroding consitutional rights You don't have a right not to show your license when pulled over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:51
|
|
